Did anyone else find this strange?

[JonathanValjean]

I bought PTW on Friday, and so far, I have been very pleased by it. (I haven't attempted the beast that is multiplayer yet, however. I think I'll wait for the bugs to be worked out. It's a good thing that Firaxis is excellent about releasing timely patches.)

My question: is anyone else surprised, if not shocked, to see that the Spanish Civ is not expansionist? They only settled half of the Western Hemisphere.... That is like saying the Romans were not Militaristic, the French are not cultured, the sun isn't hot... Anyway, I just thought I would see what you thought about it. Admittedly, it is not a big deal; however, I would prefer that the different Civs have strengths that are true to their history/reality. No biggie, though.

One more thing: I don't think that being able to build a stock exchange in every city is realistic. I know that my city doesn't have one; does yours? Don't answer that last question New Yorkers. (he-he) I will have to say, however, that anything that expands the game is a welcome addition.

Thanks for your comments.

 

[joespaniel]

Wrong forum buddy.

 

[JonathanValjean]

Sorry about that. I wasn't sure whether to post it in the General Discussion forum or here. I decided to post it here, since this is the Multiplayer forum, and because the game about which I have questions is Play the World. I hope others' perception that this post is in the wrong forum will not preclude a response.

 

[joespaniel]

No problem, youre only the n'th person today.

The moderators will move it to Gen Disc., prob'ly.

Welcome to CFC.

Edit: Hi TF.

 

[Chieftess]

Thread moved.

 

[Cantankerous]

A sound argument could definitely be made that the Spanish should have been expansionist, but an equally good argument could be made to justify them as commercial (and they were/are obviously religious). If I remember my history correctly, the Spanish were out to exploit the new world and other colonial settlements in search of gold. Their "expansion" helped to achieve this quest for riches. Thus reasoning for the commercial trait.

And regarding the stock exchange:

I think it's addition to the game was more to facilitate additional gold production rather than to duplicate some historical fact. Lots of new units have been added to the game (and not all were civ specific UU's), so additional income is needed to help support them.

At least that's my opinion.

 

[sumthinelse]

You can add a 3rd attribute to any civ in the editor. Yes, I know that changes the game play.

The Romans were without a doubt industrious, as anyone who has traveled in Europe and the Middle East knows, but I don't argue with the fact that they were militaristic and commercial too. I saw the Roman theater in Amman, Jordan, a couple of years ago (but was so exhausted from work that I forgot to put film in the camera!)

 

[Cantankerous]

Another factor to consider is that of the eight new civs added to the game, three of them have the expansionist trait. Making the Spanish commercial instead of expansionist could have simply been a gameplay decision to keep from having too many civs with the same characteristics.

 

[Silverflame]

Yeah, we already have Mongols, Vikings, and Arabs expansionist. We dont need another!

One thing though, I dont think Mongols should be Expansionist/Militarilistic for game purposes. IMO, I think those traits are one of the worst combinations possible. Now Vikings I understand, since their beserks are so good, but Mongols? Their Keshiks are just about average usefulness(for a UU). Oh well, anything else for the Mongols wouldnt be historically accurate anyway.