Civilization Request Thread

Well here's a WIP Rome led by Scipio Africanus. And certainly not a simple design, I'd say!
 
I was joking, I presented a design for all three yesterday literally here :'(
 
not going to lie I LOVE ROME really looking forward to Scipio Africanus
HAIL SCIPIO AFRICANUS HERO OF ROME VANQUISHER OF CATRHAGE
 
Spoiler a response that is way longer than is healthy for anyone, just like this tag, so I'll stop now :
I have to agree with Sulomon here that in most games except maybe quick speed, and even then if you can conquer quick enough, the first part of Hammurabi's UA is very, very powerful. Especially when coupled with all the extra buffs towards social policies from the UA, UB *and* UU. That said, I like the overall idea and it really does a good job of symoblising something that is pretty tough to represent using the ingame mechanics, ie, good lawmaking. The only other thing I can say to criticise it is that it could be really frustrating attempting to make use of the UU's secondary effect given how irritating and fast trade routes are, we all know how annoying it is attempting to patrol your trade routes even with a pretty quick unit! It does work well with the UA though; a really cyclical civ.

Yeah, nothing to add here. Your arguments are all valid and I have no objections.

In contrast I'd say Nebuchadnezzar I is slightly underpowered, but that might just be my playstyle. Its not a huge bonus being able to found your religion upon capturing an enemy captial, but I usually get a religion up early and only conquer in the mid-late game so thats maybe just me. Other than that, its a really great design, particularly the second half of the UA. Cyclical as all hell too.

I think the latter part of the design is powerful enough to make up for the perhaps underpowered first part, but it's just different opinions, I guess.


Nabonassar I think seems like the weakest of the five, though its still not bad. I don't think the second half of the UA is useful at all, since generally losing a war so badly you have to give up cities is something people tend to avoid. That said the extra GS generation is so powerful I'd probably end up just making a load of crappy cities, declaring war on an AI and then giving them all those cities. So either way I don't think it makes for a good playstyle. The Chaldean too is strange, I don't understand what 'build a star catalogue' is; is it a building? In which case you have 4 uniques, and either way why wouldn't you just build an academy, unless the building yields more than 8 science, in which case it becomes OP. Is it a science boost? In which case, isn't it just the regular science boost? Or is it a UI, in which case, why not built an academy? I dun gettit. Aaand the UB is really really weak at the start of the game and absurdly overpowered at the end; very unbabylonish.

Yeah, in hindsight the bonus for losing cities may be historically accurate, but weird from a gameplay standpoint. As for the Star Catalogues, they are buildings that yield Science, and may be built once in cities, but the Chaldean is not consumed upon doing so. I think it adds a nifty little bonus to the Great Scientist. For the UB I disagree... kinda. Maybe making it yield base Science instead would be a good idea.

While I'm being a dick, I also don't really care too much for Merodach-Baladan. Nearly all of the bonuses are set up so that they only have any real effect after having pretty much lost the game, so unlike every other civ in the series, it receives no actual boost towards a victory condition save a potential +30% combat boost if you've lost and recaptured 6 cities, at which point you'd be so far behind that victory becomes impossible. I like the Sealander though, I'm surprised a river bonus didn't come up more often but the sealander makes perfect use of it. Furthermore, how would the UA actually work ingame? It would result in a lot of the player just sitting around doing nothing waiting for units to spawn and I dun think many players would have the patience for that and just ragequit after being eliminated.

I knew Merodach-Baladan had to be an oddball from the start (he was one himself), but I think you misunderstood the first part of the UA: it's talking about any city liberated, which makes it significantly better. But I agree about the latter part of the UA, it is quite pointless. :p

Back to being nice, I really like Nebuchadnezzar II. I would say that the UA is odd for Babylon in that it works better the later the game gets, but mechanically its very interesting, especially paired with the unique siege unit. Maybe a teeny little bonus could be put on the end to keep her relevant in the early game? I feel like it really represents a sort of plunder and conquest society incredibly well, exporting bonuses from the peripheral cities you've conquered back to a lavish and fancy heartland. The catapult UU is really great even if it steps a teeny tiny bit on Assyrias big hairy toes, but ah well. The UB is a little odd though, its a cool effect but given how the UA and UU work, it essentially just equates to a huge food buff in the capital and nothing else. I'd probably also stick the effects of the original walls of Babylon on there, if perhaps a little toned down to compensate for the new bonus food buff. Either way, great ideas there.

Sure, I can change Nebby. And you definitely have the right idea when you talk about moving bonuses from remote cities to the centre of the empire, because that was, in fact, the intention. Once again, in hindsight, I see that the UB is weaker than it was supposed to be.

On the whole regarding the split more generally I have a couple things to say:

- The cylicalism is always amazing, they all line up perfectly with an obvious playstyle and present new ways to play; all look very satisfying to play as for that reason.

- They all do a good job of representing things that are very difficult to portray in civ. Lawmaking, plundering, stability, stuff like that is way outside of the base mechanics but you still represent them well; so great stuff there.

Cyclicism and representation are my two most important focuses when designing civs, then comes balance. I am very happy this shines through. :D

- None of the original firaxis uniques used. I try to find a place for them usually and its often quite good fun to try divvy them up between the civs. Its also something people recognise as being characteristic of a civ split; see India and Polynesia. I think it also just works - some of my favourite splits are the ones that use the original uniques to their full effect. They don't actually need to have the exact same abilities as vanilla (see India and Polynesia, again.) but its nice to try use them anyway.

Well... Nabonassar has the essence of the old UA, the Nas Qasti is supposed to be the Bowman, and Amuhhu the Walls of Babylon, so I disagree on this.

- A lot of situational abilities. Sometimes its nice to have some passive bonuses which will nudge you along even if you don't stick to a perfectly straight path. For example Merodach-Baladan is useless if you don't lose all your cities :lol:

Yeah, situational abilities are sometimes unavoidable if you strive for historical accuracy, sadly. And I find accuracy and proper representation to be highly important.

Hope some of this is useful and I don't come across like a complete knobend for criticising too much!

All criticism welcomed warmly, and all praise thanked for (seriously, thank you. :)).

And while we're doing the whole discussion thing, mind if I ask about my Rome split? You said the designs don't focus on the personalities, but I didn't think that'd matter for the republic and the Constantine civ is really, really focussed on his personality. It has bonuses for conversion, something he was famous for, and a secondary bonus for your capital, which I also thought was fairly emblematic of a guy who founded a new capital and named it after himself. I changed the Middle-Imperial civ to Trajan since I think he better represents the wide, conquest focussed empire.

I complained about the lack of focus on personalities too quickly, the only one I think is a bit too general now is Trajan. Constantine's is actually very fitting for him and his rule.

Regardless I try and follow firaxis precedent and so I don't think the uniques should be tied to the leader in their entirety. Pedro II was long dead by the time of the Pracinhas and Gustav Adolf would look at you pretty funny if you mentioned a nobel prize or even Caroleans. I mean I agree that its nice to have a link, I do think its weird that Gustav got the Nobel Prize UA, for example, but I don't think they have to be completely tied to one another. Its more about the civ than the leader here.

I tend to focus more on the leader than the civ, especially in cases where the leaders stand out, like in the case of most emperors. But, yeah, for the Republic you're right, and maybe so for Trajan as well, who wasn't really a very unique person to be honest.

Now for your designs:

The Republic
I don't really understand the focus on Occupied cities, and it isn't really that helpful, as you want to avoid having too many occupied cities. It sounds a bit weak, to be honest. Also, the Forum negates the helpfulness of the UA, so... :sad:
But I do like the concept of Food and Production bonuses from adopting Social Policies, and the Triarii in general.

Trajan
I find this civ to be very interesting as a concept, but I feel it's a tad too militaristic for Trajan, who according to Wikipedia is:

Wikipedia said:
also known for his philanthropic rule, overseeing extensive public building programs and implementing social welfare policies, which earned him his enduring reputation as the second of the Five Good Emperors who presided over an era of peace and prosperity in the Mediterranean world.

The Greatest Arse in History Constantine
I don't really think the second part of the UA fits Constantine that well. Aside from that, it's pretty good.

My largest problem is that some of these come across as slightly blobbed civs, especially the Republic (but that was unavoidable). When I say slightly, I mean very slightly. Like how Constantine is focused on Barbarians, and instantly converts Pantheon believers, when that better fits Theodosius (I actually finished my Theodosius design yesterday, and it focuses on Barbarians and religious persecution). But that is a very weak complaint, and I realise I may be the only one who wants a Theodosius civ, anyway. As for Trajan... well, it fits him, because it is very generically Roman, like Trajan himself was.

Now I have to mention the obvious omissions from the split:

  • Sulla
  • Caesar
  • Augustus

But I realise it isn't very user friendly to have more than three civs in one post.

Now I'll just have to redesign the Babylon split and finish my own Rome...

EDIT:
Well here's a WIP Rome led by Scipio Africanus. And certainly not a simple design, I'd say!

I won't be using this civ, because it replaces vanilla Rome. So I can continue designing a Rome split with good conscience.
 
I dunno, on one hand, Trajan would work as a cultural Roman state, that much is given from what you said. On the other hand, Trajan was the one responsible for expanding Rome's borders, through two military conflicts, one against the Kingdom of Dacia, with which he conquered, and the second against Parthia, with which he conquered Armenia and Mesopotamia, as well as sacked the Parthian Capital, Ctesiphon. If that doesn't scream the militarism that you say he does not represent, I don't know what will.
 
I feel it's a tad too militaristic for Trajan

I didn't say he shouldn't be militaristic, I just said I think he should have other focuses as well, because he did more than just expand, although that was his greatest accomplishment aside from being regarded by his contemporaries as the best emperor.
 
I request Transnistria, voted the most obscure country on earth ( as opposed to most obscure country OFF of the earth.:lol:)
 
Needs a Dumnonia faction, Last Romans of britain. Trading/defensiv/with lil bit of religion faction. even have some ideas for eventsdeciison gildas's De Excudio (Ignore = moneycultural increas, accept and change spend money increase faith?) and the British exodus from the homelands (drop population from irst 4/5 cities as long as over certain amount and increase th epopulation of next 45 founded cities for 30 turns or something). Lead by Geraint.

Also Athelstan, Anglo-Saxon king of the Brtain/England. who basically slapped the British Isles into submission. maybe UA re: city states subjugation and conquering shiz
 
Spoiler for another big ol' reply.
Spoiler :
I think the latter part of the design is powerful enough to make up for the perhaps underpowered first part, but it's just different opinions, I guess.

Actually, yeah, you're right there. I was just finding criticism for the sake of criticism. :lol:

As for the Star Catalogues, they are buildings that yield Science, and may be built once in cities, but the Chaldean is not consumed upon doing so. I think it adds a nifty little bonus to the Great Scientist. For the UB I disagree... kinda. Maybe making it yield base Science instead would be a good idea.

I personally have no problem with the Star Catalogue in that case, though it'd be tough to get the numbers right to keep it balanced; though yielding base science is a nice way to boost babylon in the early game. The UB though, remember that unless you grab the great library, your science generation is gonna be piss poor until you built that library. So +50% of that is still going to be worse than building a library in all cities. However once you get to the late game with the huge science generation, +50% in every city is pretty nuts and would be an insta win. I think the problem is that the whole game basically hinges on science, any civ which buffs it needs incredibly deliberate and careful values or it can become insanely overpowered. Its no coincedence that both Korea and Babylon, the only science focussed UAs, are considered some of the best civs in the game despite having pretty unexciting UUs and UBs.

I knew Merodach-Baladan had to be an oddball from the start (he was one himself), but I think you misunderstood the first part of the UA: it's talking about any city liberated, which makes it significantly better. But I agree about the latter part of the UA, it is quite pointless.

Ah, you're right, that is infinitely more useful, but the latter half of the UA and the first UU are still mostly useless, so I think the criticism stands. Most players would quit long before those abilities become useful. I think the inclusion of Merodach-Baladan is a symptom of ESS (Excessive split syndrome) I mean he's kind of interesting but doesn't seem like he'd be considered at all as a viable candidate if he wasn't actually from Babylon. He just led an ultimately failed revolt.

Cyclicism and representation are my two most important focuses when designing civs, then comes balance. I am very happy this shines through.

Eyy, I'm glad; its always good when people actually understand what you're trying to do eh?

Well... Nabonassar has the essence of the old UA, the Nas Qasti is supposed to be the Bowman, and Amuhhu the Walls of Babylon, so I disagree on this.

Ahh right, that makes sense now. It was hard to tell what was what since my Akkadian is famously rusty. (I joke, but I had to read an Akkadian text for my last university interview. I failed. Pretty hard.)

I don't really understand the focus on Occupied cities, and it isn't really that helpful, as you want to avoid having too many occupied cities. It sounds a bit weak, to be honest. Also, the Forum negates the helpfulness of the UA, so...
But I do like the concept of Food and Production bonuses from adopting Social Policies, and the Triarii in general.

Ah you're totally right here, that was kind of a miswording on my part; by occupied I kind of just meant captured cities that weren't puppets. Originally it was 'for every courthouse and puppet in the empire' but I ended up changing it to the poorly worded 'occupied' when I gave the forum its pacifying effect. Thinking about it now, I'll probably change it to 'captured cities'...

find this civ to be very interesting as a concept, but I feel it's a tad too militaristic for Trajan, who according to Wikipedia is also known for his philanthropic rule, overseeing extensive public building programs and implementing social welfare policies, which earned him his enduring reputation as the second of the Five Good Emperors who presided over an era of peace and prosperity in the Mediterranean world.

I get that, but I was kind of forced down a bit of a militaristic route because neither the legion nor the Ballista really fit in with Constantine or the republic, since Constantine kind of needed the Comitatenses since he basically formed them, and it'd be odd having a post-marian UU for the republic. So given he needed to have 2 pretty powerful UUs as his only uniques, I thought it made the most sense to go full militarism with him. Besides, Trajan was, as you say, a sort of 'catch all' generic Roman. As such I wanted to reeeaally emphasise conquest as without it, the Romans are just a bunch of Italians pretending to be Greek :lol:

I don't really think the second part of the UA fits Constantine that well. Aside from that, it's pretty good

Yeah I just stuck the second half in because it needed a conquest bonus and a capital bonus to be consistent with the other Romes. Also the first half of the UA makes conquest really useful, to acquire new cities to convert, so I thought it'd be good to have a little nudge to make conquest easier. I don't like designs which incentivise doing something without providing any bonuses towards actually getting it done, usually.

Constantine is focused on Barbarians, and instantly converts Pantheon believers, when that better fits Theodosius

I have to disagree there, the Comitatenses was specifically, according to Wikipedia, set up by Constantine to combat barbarians wherever they appeared, being more mobile than the old legions. Furthermore, towards the end of his life, Constantine started destroying pagan shrines and being way more militaristic about his faith, so I figured representing that somehow was important.

Now I have to mention the obvious omissions from the split:
Sulla
Caesar
Augustus

I always do 3, gotta keep a pattern. Also you run out of icons if you do more than 3, usually. I might return and do more splits after I'm finished, and if I do, Caesar and Augustus will be first on my list; but I have a long way to go until then. (Plus, yknow, the Huns and stuff, which will take, according to my calculations, 9 years and the soul of my first born child to split into 3)
 
(Plus, yknow, the Huns and stuff, which will take, according to my calculations, 9 years and the soul of my first born child to split into 3)

Shouldn't be that hard if you split them in only two. Have something barbarian related for the early Hun civ led by anyone and let the razing for Attila. The early one could have an unique from one of the peoples they conquered and perhaps a mercenary cavalry unit.

I had some >>unfinished<< ideas for this:

Attila UA: (Scourge of God)
Raze Cities at double speed. While razing a city, turn Golden Age points from the previous owner of that city into Gold and Production at the Capital.

Early Huns UA:
Defeated Barbarian units grant Production to your Capital (If it is building a military unit) and re-spawn near another civilization's borders.

The bonuses don't necessarily have to be these, just something along the lines of killing barbarian units grants you something.

I'd also like to have something related to capturing barbarian encampments for the early huns, such as having them produce units for you instead of being destroyed. But like I said these were just some unfinished ideas I haven't put much thought on.
 
I think the inclusion of Merodach-Baladan is a symptom of ESS (Excessive split syndrome) I mean he's kind of interesting but doesn't seem like he'd be considered at all as a viable candidate if he wasn't actually from Babylon. He just led an ultimately failed revolt.

I agree. I would be interested in making a Merodach-Baldan civ, but not as a part of a Babylon split, especially since he wasn't originally Babylonian. As for his success... he did manage to rule Babylon indepentently for 12 years in the face of A-bloody-syria, and again for almost a year, and managed to escape capture. He also outlived at least three kings of Assyria and provided a constant pain in the donkey for them. But, yeah, you can argue that what he did was of little importance in the long run.

Eyy, I'm glad; its always good when people actually understand what you're trying to do eh?

Yes. :)

Ah you're totally right here, that was kind of a miswording on my part; by occupied I kind of just meant captured cities that weren't puppets. Originally it was 'for every courthouse and puppet in the empire' but I ended up changing it to the poorly worded 'occupied' when I gave the forum its pacifying effect. Thinking about it now, I'll probably change it to 'captured cities'...

Much, much better, then!

I get that, but I was kind of forced down a bit of a militaristic route because neither the legion nor the Ballista really fit in with Constantine or the republic, since Constantine kind of needed the Comitatenses since he basically formed them, and it'd be odd having a post-marian UU for the republic. So given he needed to have 2 pretty powerful UUs as his only uniques, I thought it made the most sense to go full militarism with him. Besides, Trajan was, as you say, a sort of 'catch all' generic Roman. As such I wanted to reeeaally emphasise conquest as without it, the Romans are just a bunch of Italians pretending to be Greek :lol:

I think this comes from your desire of limiting your splits to but three civs. In the case of Rome it is hard to overlook important characters such as Caesar and Augustus. I'd even argue the inclusion of more figures than just those I mentioned.

I have to disagree there, the Comitatenses was specifically, according to Wikipedia, set up by Constantine to combat barbarians wherever they appeared, being more mobile than the old legions. Furthermore, towards the end of his life, Constantine started destroying pagan shrines and being way more militaristic about his faith, so I figured representing that somehow was important.

Yeah, ok.
 
Greek Split I II

Sparta
Leader: Agesilaus II
UA: The Agoge
Veteran Spartan units ignore the beneficial effects of all enemy promotions and all units grant :c5war: experience to any adjacent friendly unit when killed. Receive :c5goldenage: golden age points whenever you promote a unit before the medieval era.

UU: Hoplite(Replaces Spearman)
The Hoplite is slightly stronger than the Spearman it replaces and receives more :c5war: experience from combat when adjacent to another Hoplite. Furthermore, the Hoplite start with the unique promotion 'Stand of the 300' which give it a +10% :c5strength: combat bonus for every adjacent enemy.

UU: Syssitia Hall (Replaces Barracks)
Unlike the barracks, during war, the Syssitia Hall provides an additonal +1 :c5war: experience to trained units for every enemy unit killed during the war. While at peace, the Syssitia Hall provides +3 :c5food: food while a military unit is being trained.

Athenian Republic
Leader: Pericles
UA: Cradle of the West
Upon adopting a :c5culture: social policy, all cities receive a unique bonus until the next :c5culture: policy is adopted based on which :c5citizen: specialist type makes up the majority in that city* Whenever a :c5greatperson: Great Person is born in the Empire, receive :c5culture: culture, increased by your current :c5happy: happiness.

UU: Quadrireme(Replaces Trireme)
The Quadrireme, unlike the trireme it replaces, starts with +3 :c5war: experience for every point of local :c5happy: happiness in the city it is trained in. In addition to this, while within the borders of a friendly or allied :c5citystate: city state, the Quadrireme generates :c5culture: culture equal to its level.

UB: Acropolis (Replaces Amphitheatre)
On top of the regular +2 :c5happy: happiness provided by the circus, the Acropolis does not need any specific resources to be built. Upon adopting a :c5culture: policy, the Acropolis generates +3 of a random yield. This yield is changed upon adopting your next :c5culture: policy.

Modern Greece
Leader: Eleftherios Venizelos
UA: Veneration of the Ancients
Receive a 3 turn :tourism: tourism bonus in your 4 largest cities when recovering an artefact. Artefacts produce double :c5culture: culture and :tourism: tourism yields in coastal cities and a further +1 :tourism: tourism for every worked coastal tile.

UU: Antaris (Replaces Rifleman)
Though the Antaris slightly weaker than the rifleman it replaces, it receives double defensive bonuses on improved tiles, and heals at an increased rate for every 5 :c5citizen: citizens in the :c5capital: capital.

UB: Mouseio (Replaces Museum)
Unlike the Museum it replaces, the Mouseio does not produce any :c5culture: culture on its own. However, ancient or classical buildings and wonders in this city will provide +1 :c5culture: culture and :tourism: tourism. Furthermore, when both Great Work slots are filled with Greek :greatwork: Great Works of Art from the same era, or two Greek artefacts this city receives an additional +3 :tourism: tourism.
 
Plus, can confirm TarcisioCM has a design for the Hephthalites. I should know, I gave it to him. =]
 
I was interested in Greek mythos and made a rough idea of a Colchi civilization.

Colchis
UA: Land of the Golden Fleece
Start with an unique Great work of art that provides +4 :c5happy: and +4 :c5gold:. Sources of sheep provide 1 extra :c5gold: and :c5culture:
I do understand that there was an African civilization made that had a problem with a great work at start and immediate culture victory. So if there isn't a solution to that other ideas for representing the Golden Fleece in the UA?

UU: Milesian Greek
Replaces settler. Can build trading posts and settled cities spawn a caravan unless the limit has been exceeded by two.

UB: Tool Workshop
Replaces workshop, +1 :c5food: on plantations.
I was having a really hard time coming up with a second unique and I read that they had progressive agricultural techniques so I thought of something based on that.
 
Ashanti. Actually, when the UA was just that the civ was pathetically underpowered, a Great Work of art at start doesn't affect any civ's culture much, really.
 
Here's a slightly different version, accompanied by one of my own ideas:

---

Colchis (Kuji)
Start Bias: Forest
Capital: :c5capital: Aia
UA: Heads Of Kartli
Each Courthouse in the Empire adds an additional +2 to all the yields of the Palace. Begin with a unique World Wonder in the :c5capital: Capital that provides +4 :c5gold: Gold, +4 :c5happy: Happiness, and +1 :c5culture: Culture - a yield which increases by +1 each time you advance to a new Era.
UU: Milesian (replaces Worker)
Generates +1 :c5gold: Gold in the :c5capital: Capital and closest Colchian City while constructing a Tile Improvement. This bonus is doubled if improving Luxury Resources. May be expended to hurry :c5production: Military Production in the :c5capital: Capital.
UU: Sceptuchus (replaces Great General)
Generates +2 :c5gold: Gold, :c5production: Production, :c5science: Science, :c5culture: Culture, and :c5faith: Faith when garrisoned in a non-Occupied City. These yields increase by +1 for each Courthouse in the Empire.

---

Urartu (Semiramis) (Yes she's semifictional I don't care she's awesome)
Start Bias: Coastal
Capital: :c5capital: Tushpa
UA: Reach Of Argishti
Gain a +2% :c5production: Military Production bonus in all Cities for each Major Civilization with whom you are trading a Strategic Resource. Generate +2 :c5faith: Faith for each Major Civilization with whom you have a direct land border.
UU: Mare-Man (replaces Chariot Archer)
Unlike the Chariot Archer it replaces, the Mare-man is a melee unit. Also vastly different to the Chariot Archer, it starts with Formation I, +1 Movement, and the unique promotion "Suri of Haldi", which grants a +5% :c5strength: Combat Bonus for every Shrine and Temple in the Empire, to a maximum of +50%. Upgrades to Knight.
UB: Sisi (replaces Temple)
+2 :c5faith: Faith. Costs no :c5gold: Maintenance, and generates +1 :c5faith: Faith for each Military Unit trained or purchased for :C5faith: Faith in the City in which it is built. Each Sisi lowers the cost of purchasing Military Land Units with :c5faith: Faith by 5%, to a maximum of 50%

---

They're both designed to be fairly wide Civs, both from similar parts of the world, and both centre around killing stuff with the money you make. Hopefully they interest people! =]
 
And since we're doing Black Sea Colonies:

Kingdom of Pergamon:
Leader: Attalus I
Unique Ability: Attalid Builders: Production requirements for buildings reduced by 20% in cities you own if you already have a building constructed in the Capital.
Unique Unit: Thureos Spears: Stronger version of the Spearman of which it replaces.
Unique Building: Holosideros Barracks: Replaces the Barracks. In addition to the traditional benefits of the Barracks, a Garrisoned unit in a city with this building provides an additional 25% combat bonus.
Capital: Pergamon

Kingdom of Cappadocia:
Leader: Ariarathes V
Unique Ability: Philhellenic Knowledge: Gain +5 Science for every new era you enter in. Science output is increased by 10% if a civilization has researched a Technology you do not have.
Unique Unit: Cappadocian Cavalry: Replaces the Horseman, can be hidden in forests, and can move through forests as if they were normal terrain.
Unique Unit 2: Nisean Breeder: Replaces Great General, when near Mounted and Armored Units, the units are healed +10 at the end of your turn as long as they are close by.
Capital: Eusebia
 
Top Bottom