Designing Spain in Civ7

[Lord of War N02]

Spain has more choice for unique units more than conquistadors and Tercios like Jinete, Caballeros and Santisma Trinadad. I think Tercio should be Spanish unique unit instead of conquistador but if they add one more unique unit it should be Santisma Trinadad

Spain should have medieval leadrs like Alfonso IX, Alfonso X and Pelagius of Astrurias.

Here what I would design Spain in CIV 7
1. What should be their focus?: culture and science (based on Alfonso X's reign) or religious and expansionist if its based on late medieval to Early modern Spain
2. Leadership: Alfonso X
3. Unique units: Tercio and Santisma Trindad
4: Unique Infrastructure: Mission (Religious building)

 

[Zaarin]

It would be cool if we got Spanish leader from the medieval era for once, tercio instead of tired conquistadors, but my greatest desire is Soain being superoower in culture, art, literature and architecture.

Spain should have medieval leadrs like Alfonso IX, Alfonso X and Pelagius of Astrurias.

The problem there for me is that Medieval Spain was a historical footnote. I personally love historical footnotes, but that's not generally what Civ is about, being targeted to a mainstream audience.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Spain has more choice for unique units more than conquistadors and Tercios like Jinete, Caballeros and Santisma Trinadad. I think Tercio should be Spanish unique unit instead of conquistador but if they add one more unique unit it should be Santisma Trinadad

Spain should have medieval leadrs like Alfonso IX, Alfonso X and Pelagius of Astrurias.

Here what I would design Spain in CIV 7
1. What should be their focus?: culture and science (based on Alfonso X's reign) or religious and expansionist if its based on late medieval to Early modern Spain
2. Leadership: Alfonso X
3. Unique units: Tercio and Santisma Trindad
4: Unique Infrastructure: Mission (Religious building)

Nuestra Senora de la Santisima Trinidad ?! No, No, Four Times No - it would be a Unique that realistically, no one would want to build!
First, because it was expanded from 112 to 140 guns, and the extra guns were so small (8-ponders) as to be almost insignificant as naval artillery - it was no more powerful than an 'ordinary' First Rate 100 - 112 gun ship of the line.
Second, the addition of a fourth continuous gun deck and ordinance high above the waterline made her sail like a Waterlogged Brick: her crew nicknamed her El Ponderoso and at Trafalgar she was almost unmaneuverable and so was quickly put out of action.
Third, she wasn't that Unique: England and the USA also designed 4-deck Ships of the Line, the USA actually built one (USS Pennsylvania, which took 20 years to build and made exactly one trip down the USA east coast - another oversized Non-Sailing Ship), but all such ships were made obsolete after 1805 when Sepping's diagonal internal bracing and wrought iron reinforcement pieces made longer 3-deckers possible carrying up to 120 - 130 guns and maintaining decent sailing qualities.

For a Naval Unique Spain has better choices. For example, the Flota Galleon that was standardized by Spanish Royal Decree in the early 1600s for the Treasure Fleets: making possible Naval Trade routes that can carry more, produce higher profits, and defend themselves. This would tie in nicely with a Spanish ability to establish and expand overseas colonies and possessions.

 

[Bruhmoment]

A unique ability that specializes in colonization and maybe a unit for warfare? This could match spain in real life as they were colonizing and were at war with several nations.
Just my two cents

 

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

Nuestra Senora de la Santisima Trinidad ?! No, No, Four Times No - it would be a Unique that realistically, no one would want to build!
First, because it was expanded from 112 to 140 guns, and the extra guns were so small (8-ponders) as to be almost insignificant as naval artillery - it was no more powerful than an 'ordinary' First Rate 100 - 112 gun ship of the line.
Second, the addition of a fourth continuous gun deck and ordinance high above the waterline made her sail like a Waterlogged Brick: her crew nicknamed her El Ponderoso and at Trafalgar she was almost unmaneuverable and so was quickly put out of action.
Third, she wasn't that Unique: England and the USA also designed 4-deck Ships of the Line, the USA actually built one (USS Pennsylvania, which took 20 years to build and made exactly one trip down the USA east coast - another oversized Non-Sailing Ship), but all such ships were made obsolete after 1805 when Sepping's diagonal internal bracing and wrought iron reinforcement pieces made longer 3-deckers possible carrying up to 120 - 130 guns and maintaining decent sailing qualities.

Was the USS Pennsylvania the first US Navy 'First Rate Ships of the Line'? (And is this begins a US Navy naming convention systems that Capitol Ships (Later Battleships since the first Pre-Dreads were commissioned, ones that didn't look much different to protected (and maybe Armored) cruisers like USS Olympia)
What happened to the USS Pennsylvania? did it sink off shore or what?
And did 'Seppings' internal bracing and wrought iron reinforcements the beginnings of Ironhull ships of the Mid 19th Century?

For a Naval Unique Spain has better choices. For example, the Flota Galleon that was standardized by Spanish Royal Decree in the early 1600s for the Treasure Fleets: making possible Naval Trade routes that can carry more, produce higher profits, and defend themselves. This would tie in nicely with a Spanish ability to establish and expand overseas colonies and possessions.

Should this be 'Trade unit' or 'Ranged warship' ? Did Spanish Flota Galleon fits the 'Manowar' definitions? (and did Portuguese actually invented or developed 'Manowar' right after they've invented Naus and quickly discovered that a nau could accept more cannons than any preexisting ships made before this design)?
And should the same 'Flota Galleon' rule applies to Portuguese Naus which introduced quite earlier?

 

[Krajzen]

I always wanted to say some thing regarding civs like Soain (colonial emoires) in civ games. Excuse lack of a certain letter, because goddamn ohone got broken.

Namely, you should not give such civs 'colonialism theme' or 'colonialist bonuses' or generally Faraway Mid to Late Game Oversea Exoansion Bonuses if the core game itself doesn't make such olaystyles oossible, viable and actually highly orofitable. There is nothing easier than slapoing some "bonus to embarked units, conquistadors can found a city, bonus for district on other continent, meager bonus for super long trade routes". And then walking away and not noticing that those bonuses are a complete trash in both civ5 and civ6 because the game hates either wide olaystyle, mid - to - late game cities, settling other continents (hello terrible loyalty system), or just olain doesn't reward Very Far Trade Outposts really that much to be worth bothering.

If the game has base mechanics such as 'okay listen since renaissance era you can make gigantic fortune if you caoture some strategic trade ooints across the globe, the further the better' or 'okay listen exotic resources in this game are amazing and you get those turbo exoansion mechanics late game enabling you to quickly conquer their oroducers' then you can make colonial Soanish civ which develoos this idea further and is actually strong.

If you make the game as it is now, where the ootimal way is to keeo on your own continent and God knows why I should go across the world to conquer or trade, then colonial Soain will suck.

What's also oroblematic is how colonial conceots don't work anyway on oangea style maos, so I don't know how would I introduce them to the civ game.

 

[Zaarin]

@Krajzen is correct that for civs like Spain, Portugal, and England to really shine, Civ7 really needs to make overseas colonies a viable and valuable commodity (less so over time--by the end of the 19th centuries European colonies were costing more than they produced, and European powers only clung to them for the prestige). Civ6 tried halfheartedly by tying luxury resources to continents, but that's a rather tepid incentive, especially since it's very easy to span two or three continents on a single landmass. Civ7 needs to do better on this front. (And naturally by the Industrial era colonies should be clamoring for their independence--and by the mid-Industrial era they should be so expensive that it's probably in the mother country's best interest to let them go. They become a new minor civ. And now we don't need Canada and Australia as civs.)

Colonies don't have to start with the Renaissance, either. On a smaller scale, the Crusader Kingdoms were basically overseas colonies of Francia, and earlier still Phoenicia and Greece were colonizing all over the Mediterranean in the Ancient and Classical eras.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

@Krajzen is correct that for civs like Spain, Portugal, and England to really shine, Civ7 really needs to make overseas colonies a viable and valuable commodity (less so over time--by the end of the 19th centuries European colonies were costing more than they produced, and European powers only clung to them for the prestige). Civ6 tried halfheartedly by tying luxury resources to continents, but that's a rather tepid incentive, especially since it's very easy to span two or three continents on a single landmass. Civ7 needs to do better on this front. (And naturally by the Industrial era colonies should be clamoring for their independence--and by the mid-Industrial era they should be so expensive that it's probably in the mother country's best interest to let them go. They become a new minor civ. And now we don't need Canada and Australia as civs.)

That could be interesting but why just limit that to civs such as Canada and Australia?
The precedent of colonial civs starting from 4000 B.C. has always been a precedent with America and I don't see them getting the same treatment.

 

[Zaarin]

That could be interesting but why just limit that to civs such as Canada and Australia?
The precedent of colonial civs starting from 4000 B.C. has always been a precedent with America and I don't see them getting the same treatment.

In an ideal world, yes, that would include the United States. But do you really see them getting rid of the United States as a playable civ? Even AoE3DE has the United States as a revolutionary option for Britain and a playable civ. But every modern civ we get rid of is one more open slot for a more interesting civ so I'm willing at accept the double standard if that's what it takes.

 

[Krajzen]

I am generally against the idea of some colonial civs (Canada, Australia) emerging from some other civs faraway cities, because that would be messy in oractice. There are very few civs that can be generated this way, and very few that can generate them, so England can spawn new civilizations if colonizes America but China cannot? Would those civs be unplayable and just designed to be late game decorations (which would probably not matter more than city states at this stage), as opposed to all other normal civs? How would you draw the lines of cities that embrace their culture and identity versus those that don't - in the context of messy ingame borders?

There is also another oroblem - so we wanna simultaneously make colonialism profitable strategy worth oursuing despite the fact that merely one or two eras after renaissance colonies inevitably rebel?

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I am generally against the idea of some colonial civs (Canada, Australia) emerging from some other civs faraway cities, because that would be messy in oractice. There are very few civs that can be generated this way, and very few that can generate them, so England can spawn new civilizations if colonizes America but China cannot? Would those civs be unplayable and just designed to be late game decorations (which would probably not matter more than city states at this stage), as opposed to all other normal civs? How would you draw the lines of cities that embrace their culture and identity versus those that don't - in the context of messy ingame borders?

Yes the only way I see that happening is if every major civ, or city-state, that was not currently playable in the game had the possibility of revolution and creating a whole new "colonial" civ. That means Zulu could theoretically colonize another continent and those cities could possibly create England. Though that would complicate things as well.

 

[Zaarin]

I am generally against the idea of some colonial civs (Canada, Australia) emerging from some other civs faraway cities, because that would be messy in oractice. There are very few civs that can be generated this way, and very few that can generate them, so England can spawn new civilizations if colonizes America but China cannot? Would those civs be unplayable and just designed to be late game decorations (which would probably not matter more than city states at this stage), as opposed to all other normal civs? How would you draw the lines of cities that embrace their culture and identity versus those that don't - in the context of messy ingame borders?

I was suggesting colonies could become minor civs (i.e., what I hope Civ7 includes instead of city-states or barbarians), not major civs, and I'd be fine with colonies being drawn from a generic minor civ pool if no thematic colony exists (though I'd try to draw it from the same region as the mother country, so to cite your China example China might spawn the postcolonial nation of Khitan or Rouran, for example). And the entire idea is to make these minor civs non-playable. Every Canada, Australia, Brazil, etc. I can excise from the game is +1 slot open for an actual civilization.

There is also another oroblem - so we wanna simultaneously make colonialism profitable strategy worth oursuing despite the fact that merely one or two eras after renaissance colonies inevitably rebel?

I think it's doable. You just have to make it very profitable in the interim. Plus, if you're willing to invest the resources it should be possible to hold onto your colonies with gradually diminishing returns.

 

[BuchiTaton]

What about the Jinete (Genitor) or Lancero (Lancer), I think they really are the most spanish unit, this is why:
- 500 years of history, from 14th to 19th century.
- They are influenced by the Andalusian cavalry, included the use of the iconic Adarga shield (still on use by the Soldaros de Cuera on American Southwest at 19th century).
- Had action on the Reconquista, Colonial Conquest and European campaigns.
- Are the origin of the Gauchos, Llaneros, Charros and Vaqueros (Cowboys).
- The spanish horsemanship is directly related to the bullfighthing tradition.
- Jinetes were actually the most usefull and significative unit (apart of the thousands of native allies) of Conquistadores.

So on game they could still have the Conquistador related bonus but with a broader representation of spanish cavalry tradition, both on time and regions.

 

[BuchiTaton]

That could be interesting but why just limit that to civs such as Canada and Australia?
The precedent of colonial civs starting from 4000 B.C. has always been a precedent with America and I don't see them getting the same treatment.

It is because "American Exceptionalism" Well actually I would be happy if America is again either the only playable anglocolonial nation or even better the only colonial at all, if that open place for others civs. I think Americans have a way bigger impact on the world history compared to what could add Canada or Australia.

I can not bring again how absurd is to hear about the "canadian civilization", if Firaxis want a civ about artic forest, trade and peace deals why not simply use the native people that actually were part of all these. Also Austalia like a frontier colonization civ? Hello here is the best example of frontier colonization civ and its name is AMERICA (make the Pioneer the american UU as a fighting settler).
Seriously Canada and Australia are kind of autonomous parts of the UK with very recent and administrative independence.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

What about the Jinete (Genitor) or Lancero (Lancer), I think they really are the most spanish unit, this is why:
- 500 years of history, from 14th to 19th century.
- They are influenced by the Andalusian cavalry, included the use of the iconic Adarga shield (still on use by the Soldaros de Cuera on American Southwest at 19th century).
- Had action on the Reconquista, Colonial Conquest and European campaigns.
- Are the origin of the Gauchos, Llaneros, Charros and Vaqueros (Cowboys).
- The spanish horsemanship is directly related to the bullfighthing tradition.
- Jinetes were actually the most usefull and significative unit on the (apart of the thousands of native allies) of Conquistadores.

So on game they could still have the Conquistador related bonus but with a broader representation of spanish cavalry tradition, both on time and regions.

Not that they are a bad choice but they are personally to me not as iconic as the tercio or the conquistador. That being said considering the abundance of unique cavalry units with horses used in the game I think that Spain could easily get something else and leave horse based units to other civs.
Like you said they were inspired by the Andalusian Cavalry and were the origins of Gauchos, Llaneros etc. which could also be used by a multitude of other civs already.

That being said there's also no reason why conquistadors couldn't be depicted riding on horses, considering the Spanish were the ones who brought horses to the new world and it could reflect that.

It is because "American Exceptionalism" Well actually I would be happy if America is again either the only playable anglocolonial nation or even better the only colonial at all, if that open place for others civs. I think Americans have a way bigger impact on the world history compared to what could add Canada or Australia.

I can not bring again how absurd is to hear about the "canadian civilization", if Firaxis want a civ about artic forest, trade and peace deals why not simply use the native people that actually were part of all these. Also Austalia like a frontier colonization civ? Hello there is the best example of frontier colonization and it name is AMERICA.
Seriously Canada and Australia are kind of autonomous parts of the UK with very recent and administrative independence.

Well that was in response to making Australia and Canada as separate "colony" civs in the game, which to me wouldn't work if you still have America as a playable civ, which what I was referring to.

Eh I personally don't have a problem with Australia because geographically it is separate from all the others, and it's one of my favorites to play as.

I don't actually have as great an opinion on Canada. I can take them or leave them. I'd prefer the former because I think you can introduce more interesting civs from that geographical region, which we know is true because of the Cree.

Also I'm pretty sure they kind of passed off Canada as not anglophone in the game, but francophone considering Wilfred Laurier as the leader can speak French as well. That being said I'd rather Haiti if we get another francophone civilization for Civ 7

That being said I don't want the game to be over saturated with colonial civs but if we get America, Australia and Haiti along with Brazil returning and Argentina, for a Spanish speaking one, I'd be fine.

 

[DeckerdJames]

Personally, I would prefer that the bonuses of a civilization be useful to the pursuit of all victory conditions, but let leaders have bonuses that can favor a particular victory type. They can always add additional leaders for a civilization to make it more flexible.

I don't know if that would be better than making some civilizations more tailored for certain victory types.

 

[Sirsquier]

I personally would like Philip the Second to be the main leader of Spain. However I'd love if each civ had a wide amount of leaders to choose from. (more on the idea of interesting choices). I mean we could have like a set of 3-5 leaders a civ. Granted it would make artwork a chore.