Portugal: 4 New Leaders and 1 New Unique Unit

Well of course, the Celts were comprised of multiple tribes with different yet similar culture and languages ranging from the Iberian peninsula to Anatolia. My main issue with this, though, is that I think it is strange to add in the Lusitani itself as part of Portugal when you consider there were Romans, Goths, Moors etc. between their existance and that of Portugal itself. So to me it is a strange leap. I understand in a Nationalistic sense this makes sense, but historically and factually it does not.
 
Raen, I agree with the others here
A Lusitani leader should be a Celtic leader rather than a Portuguese one
 
Imho just a question on where you draw the line between the civs.
When do you make the cut between the celts and the irish?
Between the vikings and modern skandinavia?
Between HRE, france, germany...and the germanic tribes before...and before...and before...
I think every decission has some good arguments here, and which you prefer is a matter of taste, nothing more.
 
Of course, I didn't say it have to be that way
Especially because it's his mod :)
I just meant that in my opinion the Lusitani are much closer to the Celts than to the Portuguese
 
The_J said:
Imho just a question on where you draw the line between the civs.
When do you make the cut between the celts and the irish?
Between the vikings and modern skandinavia?
Between HRE, france, germany...and the germanic tribes before...and before...and before...
I think every decission has some good arguments here, and which you prefer is a matter of taste, nothing more.
Click to expand...

Doesnt shock me that skandinavia say they are vikings. Do they? I dont know about them, but we Portuguese call ourselfs lusitanians. Dont know about the irish either.

A People were repressed, the others were invaders, no matter de gap, they are our rightful ancestors.

Saying that they dont belong to being part of Portuguese is going against all historical facts, going against all history people from Portugal and Spain and other countries.

I dont know about your countries but doesnt shock me at all, since you have your history, we have ours, learnt in our schools since forever.

Personally I am nationalistic yes, I have pride in all what is good but also question the bad about Portugal.
 
Hey raen, a question here.
From what I have been able to find, such as at this link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vímara_Peres
"Vímara Peres" was sort of Portugal's "George Washington".
To quote, "In 868 Count Vímara Peres was named Count of Portugal, after the reconquest of the region north of the Douro river. Later Portuguese historians viewed this event as the earliest milestone in the history of the state of Portugal, although Portugal did not achieve independence until the 12th century."
This lead to a County of Portugal, a Kingdom of Portugal, and eventually the Portugal we know today.
It would seem that the early actions of this Count contributed heavily to the earliest references of Portugal, as even cities were named after him. Yet, he wasn't included as a Leader of the Portugal being created here for Civ.
Am I missing His importance?

From I have read, this is the earliest I can find on Portugal, and it begins in 868 AD.
I still think your UU is cool, though with most of Portugal's history way after this early part, it might make more since to use the Maceman unit as his base. It will give Portugal a much longer time to use it and conquer more, during the game time when Portugal did more of it's expansion.
You could still defeat the Romans with it, and other units where Portugal expanded to all over the world. Since, the Ostrogothic Kingdom in Italy was founded in 493 AD, technically, the Roman's were history when Portugal, about 400 years later, was born.

It seems the "Reconquista" had to do with more of when your UU could be based. I think there would be a great place to focus an amazing UU.
 
plasmacannon said:
Hey raen, a question here.
From what I have been able to find, such as at this link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vímara_Peres
"Vímara Peres" was sort of Portugal's "George Washington".
To quote, "In 868 Count Vímara Peres was named Count of Portugal, after the reconquest of the region north of the Douro river. Later Portuguese historians viewed this event as the earliest milestone in the history of the state of Portugal, although Portugal did not achieve independence until the 12th century."
This lead to a County of Portugal, a Kingdom of Portugal, and eventually the Portugal we know today.
It would seem that the early actions of this Count contributed heavily to the earliest references of Portugal, as even cities were named after him. Yet, he wasn't included as a Leader of the Portugal being created here for Civ.
Am I missing His importance?

From I have read, this is the earliest I can find on Portugal, and it begins in 868 AD.
I still think your UU is cool, though with most of Portugal's history way after this early part, it might make more since to use the Maceman unit as his base. It will give Portugal a much longer time to use it and conquer more, during the game time when Portugal did more of it's expansion.
You could still defeat the Romans with it, and other units where Portugal expanded to all over the world. Since, the Ostrogothic Kingdom in Italy was founded in 493 AD, technically, the Roman's were history when Portugal, about 400 years later, was born.

It seems the "Reconquista" had to do with more of when your UU could be based. I think there would be a great place to focus an amazing UU.
Click to expand...

Good point there, I just missed him! he must be included, he was the first count of "Portucale" (only later was named Portucalense county) after the "reconquista" against the arabs, with the help of christian knights. Not complete Portugal at the time, it was Portus + Cale (Roman´s named it, it is said), at the right of the river the actual Porto (Oporto) and at the left the actual Gaia.

He gived the name to the city of Guimarães because a small fortified comercial city named Vimaranis or lands of Vimara (after his name) , that would be the birth city of Portugal as an independent country, later in 1143.

His dysnaty lasted until 1071:

House of Vímara Peres (868-1071), counts
House of Burgundy or Afonsine Dynasty (1093–1383), counts until 1139, then kings
House of Aviz or Joannine Dynasty (1385–1580)
House of Aviz-Beja (1495–1580)
House of Habsburg or Philippine Dynasty (1580–1640)
House of Braganza or Brigantine Dynasty (1640–1910)
House of Braganza-Saxe-Coburg and Gotha (1853–1910)

His Statue at Porto Center:





Has for the UU I have to investigate.

Thank You!!
 
:hammers:From what we know already, we have these facts:
He is definitely mounted.
His UU would be available as early as 898 AD.

Which in Civ4, could be: Horse Archer or Knight.
The foe it won battles against were the Arabs or Moors.
There is no exact match to this in Civ4, however, similar empires (Persia, Carthrage, Arabia) might bring us to the conclusion that they might have a mounted unit too.

The UU would need to be able to defeat these mounted units.
Knights have a better time of defeating Romans and Arabs.
So, I would recommend a Knight UU with a +50% vs. mounted.
No other knight has this, so, it is not a copy.
The closest thing would be an Elephant, but, yours would be faster, and you wouldn't have to hope for nearby ivory.
You could defeat other knights, war elephants and horse archers in battle.
On an earth map you would start near Spain, so, you wouldn't be defeated by Conquistadors.
You would have dominance on the field over any other mounted unit of its time.
The main weakness would be vs Pikeman, of course, but, no one has an invulnrable unit.

I looked up more: The Byzantine Empire existed for more than a thousand years (from approximately 306 AD to 1453 AD.
This UU would fit in towards the end of their empire's reign.
You both would have excellent knights, and since yours would be the most modern, it would be able to defeat their Cataphract in a joust.

What do you think?

Also, do the Portugues have a famous mounted group? the equivalent of a Knight or Lancer?
Whatever that word is, might be a good name for this UU.

EDIT: I found this word in portugues: Cavaleiro in: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_Christ_(Portugal)
It sounds the same as a "Cavalier" in english.
Perhaps a Crusader, Templar or "Knights of the Order" since there were several Orders of Knights.

Reading this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_Aviz
It is definitely a Knight unit.
Another possibility could be Knight +25% vs mounted, but, a -20 :hammers: cost, so, 70 :hammers: instead of 90:hammers:.
So many complain that Knights cost too much, maybe, this Portugues Cavalier should cost less.
From what I can tell, they were one of the earliest Knights out there and they had many orders.
 
plasmacannon said:
:hammers:From what we know already, we have these facts:
He is definitely mounted.
His UU would be available as early as 898 AD.

Which in Civ4, could be: Horse Archer or Knight.
The foe it won battles against were the Arabs or Moors.
There is no exact match to this in Civ4, however, similar empires (Persia, Carthrage, Arabia) might bring us to the conclusion that they might have a mounted unit too.

The UU would need to be able to defeat these mounted units.
Knights have a better time of defeating Romans and Arabs.
So, I would recommend a Knight UU with a +50% vs. mounted.
No other knight has this, so, it is not a copy.
The closest thing would be an Elephant, but, yours would be faster, and you wouldn't have to hope for nearby ivory.
You could defeat other knights, war elephants and horse archers in battle.
On an earth map you would start near Spain, so, you wouldn't be defeated by Conquistadors.
You would have dominance on the field over any other mounted unit of its time.
The main weakness would be vs Pikeman, of course, but, no one has an invulnrable unit.

I looked up more: The Byzantine Empire existed for more than a thousand years (from approximately 306 AD to 1453 AD.
This UU would fit in towards the end of their empire's reign.
You both would have excellent knights, and since yours would be the most modern, it would be able to defeat their Cataphract in a joust.

What do you think?

Also, do the Portugues have a famous mounted group? the equivalent of a Knight or Lancer?
Whatever that word is, might be a good name for this UU.

EDIT: I found this word in portugues: Cavaleiro in: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_Christ_(Portugal)
It sounds the same as a "Cavalier" in english.
Perhaps a Crusader, Templar or "Knights of the Order" since there were several Orders of Knights.

Reading this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_Aviz
It is definitely a Knight unit.
Another possibility could be Knight +25% vs mounted, but, a -20 :hammers: cost, so, 70 :hammers: instead of 90:hammers:.
So many complain that Knights cost too much, maybe, this Portugues Cavalier should cost less.
From what I can tell, they were one of the earliest Knights out there and they had many orders.
Click to expand...

I would say Christ Knights’ Order is the most kown, but was based on Knights Templar Order:
"Following the dissolution of the Order of the Templars on instigation of the King of France in 1312, King Dionysius of Portugal in 1319 used their possesions to found the Order of Christ, which also took over the order’s symbol.

In 1494 the right to conquer the new world was divided between Portugal and Spain. In America the division placed Brazil in the Portuguese Zone, where the introduction of Christianity was primarily due to the Order of Christ, whose Cross Brazil bore in its arms until 1889."

See this for mor info: http://flagspot.net/flags/pt_oxp.html

I tought of this in the past but has you say there are many. Anyway, this may be right since this order helped to the seafaring expeditions, and gived the symbol to our naus/caravels and our airplanes, for example.

The Knights of Aviz and the Knights of Christ even battled together, but the last ones lasted for longer time and bringed more notable "things".
 
About the UU, comming back to the war against the romans. I am just reading about this and they have really powerful units to worth to mention by romans -a eight years war with lusitanians.

By reading a book by Miguel Sanches Baêna, expert in military history, I found some reasons and facts that made lusitanians resist.

They have faster horses and better cavaliers. The breed of the horse is a mix between the smaller horse of the moutains and the larger heavy horses of the Celts (that invaded/emigrated to Iberia in V BC). That particular breed of horse is known as lusitanian horse.

This horses and cavaliers climbed mountains and ambushed enemies easily. Their favorite tactics were having two cavaliers in the same horse, they ambushed and one them comes to land, they fight and then run again with their faster horses.

Romans were heavier in everything, they are just about numbers and power. Lusitanians used lighter armor, a lighter round shield and the mainly used a sword that romans called gladius hispaniensis. Romans even tried to copy this sword, never equal to the original. The Sword was not only to stab but to cut unlike the roman swords at the time, that were to stab only.

So here we see david against golias. Of course with time this Golias learned from others and won the pot. But for example, still nowadays is impossible to fully replicate that sword lusitanians used, their manufacture was kept in secret forever, so that the invaders didnt have access.

I conclude that the UU must be a two mounted horse as I decribe above, that can have same movement in land or mountain. The main aspects are mobility, more sofisticated weapons and ambush/guerrilla tatics.

Any opinions on this?

Edited:

Lusitanian horse history:
http://www.lusitano-interagro.com/hist1.htm

Lusitanian Cavalry
The unit would be sothing like this:
7 strength(horse archer has 6), increased cost by 5,Guerrila III promotion
It would require iron and horse or just horse with iron knowledge or even iron with horseback riding knowledge?

Another possiblity is a cavalier said by plasmacannon. Maybe the best name is Aviz knight - +25% vs mounted, but, a -20 cost, so, 70 instead of 90.

I am still fond of the "Guerreiro Lusitano" and tought better about the bonuses. Comparison:

Swordsman - 6 40c -> 10% city attack
Celtic Gallic Warrior - 6 40c -> 10% city attack, Guerrilla I promotion, Copper or Iron
Lusitanian Warrior - 6 45c -> Guerrilla III promotion, movement 2
Roman Pretorian - 8 45c

What do you think?

PS: In Sea the real power of Portuguese was always to be ahead (of course with time others with more power got ahead), they have the first best firepower on their boats to attack coastal cities, but that is not so well represented in civ4 as we know.
 
That "Lusitanian horse history" was great to read.
Reading that, reminds us that their horse archer is good at defeating melee and mounted.

That makes me start with a UU as a:
standard Horse Archer (6) with +25% vs. melee, +25% vs mounted and keeping the standard cost.

This would make it initially equal vs. melee as the Numidian Calvary (7.5), but, as that article pointed out, even they preferred the Lusitanian Cavalry and after a few promotions, these would win out.
These bounuses are like the Janissaries, where, they are inherent, and the player could also stack similar promotions to specialize their UU even more.

Since, the information we are finding shows it better vs certain units (for example, no mention vs archers or extra effective vs. catapults), I would be hesitant to increase the base strength vs. all opponents. If that were done, I would strip away all other advantages and increase the cost.
Most people would agree that the Praetorian is overpowered.
I wouldn't do that here.

Consider these specializations of the Lusitanian Cavalry I suggest here:
Combat 1 and Shock promotions. (more anti-Praetorian)
Combat 1, Combat 2, and Formation. (more Anti-Numidian Calvary)
Flanking 1 and Sentry. (good for Scouting )
Flanking 1, Flanking 2, and Mobility. (more Keshik-like, better at climbing up hills)

Each of these gives different customization routes for the player to try.
With a CHA leader, horse archer units become formidable faster.

Overall, this UU would dominate the field warfare of its time. It has speed and the bonuses vs the stronger units out there (Immortals, War Chariots, Vultures, Keshiks, Praetorians). It is not specifically a city killer, but, it could do some serious damage to foes with many of these units in their cities.

Your "Lusitanian Warrior" above seems too much like the Gallic warrior in the game already. As the Celts did occupy part of the Iberian pennisula too, this could be where part of their abilities stem from.
 
plasmacannon said:
That "Lusitanian horse history" was great to read.
Reading that, reminds us that their horse archer is good at defeating melee and mounted.

That makes me start with a UU as a:
standard Horse Archer (6) with +25% vs. melee, +25% vs mounted and keeping the standard cost.

This would make it initially equal vs. melee as the Numidian Calvary (7.5), but, as that article pointed out, even they preferred the Lusitanian Cavalry and after a few promotions, these would win out.
These bounuses are like the Janissaries, where, they are inherent, and the player could also stack similar promotions to specialize their UU even more.

Since, the information we are finding shows it better vs certain units (for example, no mention vs archers or extra effective vs. catapults), I would be hesitant to increase the base strength vs. all opponents. If that were done, I would strip away all other advantages and increase the cost.
Most people would agree that the Praetorian is overpowered.
I wouldn't do that here.

Consider these specializations of the Lusitanian Cavalry I suggest here:
Combat 1 and Shock promotions. (more anti-Praetorian)
Combat 1, Combat 2, and Formation. (more Anti-Numidian Calvary)
Flanking 1 and Sentry. (good for Scouting )
Flanking 1, Flanking 2, and Mobility. (more Keshik-like, better at climbing up hills)

Each of these gives different customization routes for the player to try.
With a CHA leader, horse archer units become formidable faster.

Overall, this UU would dominate the field warfare of its time. It has speed and the bonuses vs the stronger units out there (Immortals, War Chariots, Vultures, Keshiks, Praetorians). It is not specifically a city killer, but, it could do some serious damage to foes with many of these units in their cities.

Your "Lusitanian Warrior" above seems too much like the Gallic warrior in the game already. As the Celts did occupy part of the Iberian pennisula too, this could be where part of their abilities stem from.
Click to expand...

I agree with your given bonuses. The only question is that I dont know them as being archers. Lusitanians go to the battle field, and run away, then come back again, and so on, until defeating the enemy (thats why I choosed Guerrilla III, written above, that gives +25% attack when defender is in hills and +50% withdrawal chance ).

Maybe an UU with a spear like in Capo´s lusitani horseman here:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=338027

What do you think?

PS: Nice tips on the specializations, thank you!

-----
EDITED:

Two possible units: I like ambrox´s simplicity but its missing Caetra (IMHO the real one is not green but its cool) from capo´s unit:

 
You can't give a mounted unit the Guerilla promotions.
You would be duplicating the Gallic Warriors too much, if it is even possible.
They already existed as Celt-Iberians in that pennisula.
I didn't put Flanking on it, because, that would duplicate Numidian Calvary too much.

If you wanted to start with Flanking 2 (+30% withdrawl) on the Horse Archer unit, that would work too, but, that would be it,
You wouldn't add too many bonuses, or the unit would become too overpowered.
And the only units that deserve that are the ones that made a huge impact on history (Praetorians, Redcoats, Immortals, War Chariots).

@ The Capo - That sounds like a good idea.
If you remember the link, could you post it here?
He is looking for ideas on Lusitanii units. I didn't realize they were already done.
 
The Capo said:
Why don't you use Bakuel's Lusitanii units? They are better than mine.
Click to expand...

I didnt knew of their existance, they are this ones, right?

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=356386

Unfortunely I dont see Caetra again, IMHO yours is better until now.

plasmacannon said:
You can't give a mounted unit the Guerilla promotions.
You would be duplicating the Gallic Warriors too much, if it is even possible.
They already existed as Celt-Iberians in that pennisula.
I didn't put Flanking on it, because, that would duplicate Numidian Calvary too much.

If you wanted to start with Flanking 2 (+30% withdrawl) on the Horse Archer unit, that would work too, but, that would be it,
You wouldn't add too many bonuses, or the unit would become too overpowered.
And the only units that deserve that are the ones that made a huge impact on history (Praetorians, Redcoats, Immortals, War Chariots).
Click to expand...

I agree with you, I only mentioned that because I dont think they have horse archers, the rest is all fine. Thank You!

So until now we have horse with spear and with +25% vs. melee, +25% vs mounted and keeping the standard cost.
 
plasmacannon said:
Cool.
Those look awesome!
Click to expand...

Good you liked :)

I am trying to aproach the unit to be more close to what I think it was. I saw images in books and such and I am trying to change the shield.

So here it goes the second attempt, new shield and correcting issues with horse:

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Blake00
Heroes of Might and Magic 2 Scenario Mod (& HoMM1 Addon) - Release Thread
Replies
6
Views
2K
CurtSibling
CurtSibling
raen
Portugal is NAU!
2
Replies
22
Views
3K
raen
raen
The_J
Help me restore the Civ4 modpacks
2 3
Replies
46
Views
6K
The_J
The_J
GreatLordofPie
[BTS] Earth 20/20
2 3 4
Replies
71
Views
17K
citizenofdoom
citizenofdoom
Sword_Of_Geddon
[BTS] Chiyu's Extra Mod
Replies
1
Views
3K
Luke1195
L
Top Bottom