Expansion Pack PREVIEW!

[puglover]

The Sims relived.

Seriously though, I hate how companies withhold features just to crank out half-baked expansions a few weeks after release. It makes me quite angry, but then again that's just marketing.

 

[Xenophonos]

I would like to see a modern day picture for the Greeks. One of the best European statesmen of his day...

Eleutherios Venizelos.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eleutherios_Venizelos

 

[onedreamer]

Augustus is great, but he is the ""son"" (or better heir) of Caesar, and we have so many other great Roman people:
Scipio Africanus,Marcus Aurelius, Hadrian, Pius Antoninus, Diocletian, ...

mitsho

I actually always thought that Caesar has never been a good choice for the leader of Rome. He was a great general, but not the leader of a civilization. The same applies to Scipio. Octavianus Augustus instead is perfect as leader, a true emperor and my favorite one. He is, after all, the guy who made it possible. Actually J. Caesar could have become Emperor himself, with great part of the army loyal to him, but he did not want it. He wanted Octavianus to be because he knew he would do well, and he had been preparing the "terrain" for him. That's why he was killed. Augustus transformed a republican Rome into an imperial Rome not only in the mere politics, but also in the magnificence of the urnbanistic of Rome and other cities, and in the minds of roman citizens, who were prouder than ever to be roman. Did you know there are more statues of Augustus than any other roman ? He was very loved by the people and his epithet, Augustus, has been later used in general for all other roman emperors.
Btw I always found it odd in Civ3 to have Caesar (clearly a military leader and not a civ leader) as Leader, and Trajan (an Emperor, although a general himself) as a mere military leader.

 

[mitsho]

Yes, I know, there not without the reason that Augustus received a city out of bricks and turned it into one of marmor... I'm perfectly Ok with Augustus being a leader, as long as Ceasar goes then, but this ain't going to happen, as Caesar is just too popular (just think Asterix and then compare the picture of him there to his civ4-leaderhead!).
Scipio Africanus I chose there because I wanted to have a more or less known man of the republic for Rome and I thought he was the best candidate for that seat. Other great republicans? Cato? too one sided, didn't really reign in any sort. Cicerco? Again, never reigned. Sulla? certainly a good choice, but is he known? Marius? Too much of a military men in my humble opinion, and again he has the same curse as Octavian, he is too close to Caesar... So, who else would you suggest?

mitsho

PS: And we should remember that it is Americans who made that game, we got to be content with what we got already

 

[Tomyris]

It should be Augustus, the first Roman Empire. He's a better choice than Caesar- and what does it matter if it's roughly the same period? Kublai Khan came right after Genghis.

 

[loveandpolitics]

The obvious choice for another Roman leader would be Emporer Constantine, he reformed the Roman empire and stopped it from collapsing for another century.

 

[mitsho]

Constantine, are you kidding? He brought the empire at the edge of collapse! He is an interesting leader, but there are countless better Roman leading person.

 

[Sorceresss]

Constantine, are you kidding? He brought the empire at the edge of collapse! He is an interesting leader, but there are countless better Roman leading person.

I agree. He allowed the very minor Christian sect to become the major religion of Rome : probably one of the causes of the Empire's downfall.

 

[onedreamer]

yeah, Constantine took over Rome at the beginning of its decadence. Though it doesn't mean it was solely his fault.

 

[Sorceresss]

Constantine took over Rome at the beginning of its decadence. Though it doesn't mean it was solely his fault.

I agree : there were many converging causes to Rome's decadence & fall.

I was just mentioning the point that the minor sect (Christian) which rapidly became Rome's major faith represented an important cause (amongst others).

I asked some of my college's History professors how come that minor sect (with a non-Roman, pacifistic & anti-polytheistic ideology) could have taken power in about 50/60 years (315 or 325 to 375), they could not answer me.

When I also asked how come that pacifistic & anti-polytheistic ideology could then convert most "pagan" warrior-cultures of Europe (of those tribes that the Romans viewed as barbaric), I still did not obtain an answer.

Maybe my professors were in too much a hurry to go play CIV III instead of answering my nerdish questions.

I could ask a neo-pagan Wicca "witch" what she has to say about that.

 

[troytheface]

i remember reading that Constatine was a great Emperor whose action kept Rome around longer than it otherwise would have. He would be a fine choice regardless of what these historical
know-it -alls contend. But expansion stuff like Pericles would have been nice.
(Or was he a horrible leader too?)

 

[zeeter]

Constantine, are you kidding? He brought the empire at the edge of collapse! He is an interesting leader, but there are countless better Roman leading person.

Oh jeez...here we go again.....

 

[zeeter]

Ok, Augustus backers. Theres a reason why the Russian ruler was called a Czar. Why the German ruler was a Kaesar. They waren't called Czaugustus or Kaugustus. Certainly Augustus's achievements are noteworthy, but in the end his greatest achievement was in ruling for some 40-odd years. If he hadn't the republic would have crumbled again. Caesar, OTOH, was a great military leader and put in place policies that were meant to take the power from the senate and put it to the people. His crossing of the Rhine River were epic in importance - building a bridge and then demolishing it within days.
Perhaps you can make a case that Augustus was a better ruler than Caesar, but you cannot make a case for him being more recognized. As far as popular history goes (for non-historians) his biggest claim to fame is that he was emperor during Jesus's life. Nobody really knows anything about the guy. Caesar is just the "sexier" choice.

 

[zeeter]

As far as the fall of the roman empire goes, it had little to do with who was the actual emperor at the time. It has more to do with the Rio Tinto - the source of most of Rome's wealth. The Tinto mines were in Spain and were run for centuries by the Romans. They fed the army and kept the economy strong. The romans built great engineering achievements to dig down into the mines, but they could only go so far. The problem was that while the Romans were great engineers, they were not great prospectors. When the mines were depleted (at least to the point of Roman engineering) the time coincided with the beginnings of the end for Rome. It's soldiers began to be paid in Salt (salaries). Britain was abandoned, and Roman coin was worthless there. They went from a coin economy to a barter economy. While the Roman empire went on for several centuries after the mining stopped, it was nowhere near as effective as it was before the mines ran out.

edit: nobody really knows for sure why the Roman Empire eventually faded. There are various reasons - this is just one of them, and the one that I find most compelling.

 

[onedreamer]

i remember reading that Constatine was a great Emperor whose action kept Rome around longer than it otherwise would have. He would be a fine choice regardless of what these historical
know-it -alls contend. But expansion stuff like Pericles would have been nice.
(Or was he a horrible leader too?)

he would, if there weren't AT LEAST 4 other emperors as good if not better than him that at least ruled during the golden age of Rome.

 

[onedreamer]

Perhaps you can make a case that Augustus was a better ruler than Caesar, but you cannot make a case for him being more recognized. As far as popular history goes (for non-historians) his biggest claim to fame is that he was emperor during Jesus's life. Nobody really knows anything about the guy. Caesar is just the "sexier" choice.

If you'd visited Italy or lived in Italy you would appreciate more what Octavianus Augustus meant for the world. "Nobody really knows anything about the guy"... well where does this claim come from ? US ? Somehow I wouldn't be surprised...

 

[zeeter]

If you'd visited Italy or lived in Italy you would appreciate more what Octavianus Augustus meant for the world. "Nobody really knows anything about the guy"... well where does this claim come from ? US ? Somehow I wouldn't be surprised...

I'm not trying to be a smart-a** here, but the game is marketed mostly for Americans who really don't know much about Augustus. To us it would be like having Harry Truman as the US leader. Very important president; made a pretty tough call once. Yet there are so many more well known presidents. I'm sure Italians are very proud of Augustus, as they should be. Let's not start nationbashing here.

 

[onedreamer]

Can you point out where is it written that the game is marketed for americans ? Why then it can be played in french, german, spanish and italian too ?

And FYI, I'm not proud of Augustus because I'm italian, but because he was Augustus. Unlike what too many people think, italians are not romans or their descendants... we merely share the same homeland.

 

[zeeter]

Can you point out where is it written that the game is marketed for americans ? Why then it can be played in french, german, spanish and italian too ?

And FYI, I'm not proud of Augustus because I'm italian, but because he was Augustus. Unlike what too many people think, italians are not romans or their descendants... we merely share the same homeland.

You can buy McDonalds everywhere, but it's marketed mostly in the USA. You can buy Coke a Cola everywhere, but it's marketed mostly in the USA. You can buy MS Windows anywhere (except the middle east and china) but it's marketed mostly in the USA. These are American companies. While they might market in France and Germany, their core audience is the USA. This doesn't really need to be written anywhere; it's common sense. Why else would much of the game force you to make American culture? West Point? Hollywood? Broadway? The Pentagon? Rock and Roll with the Elvis guitar? The Internet has Al Gore's picture on it. Mt Rushmore? Stealth Bomber? Apollo program? Manhattan Project? Most of the later military units are undeniably American looking. The game forces everyone, no matter where they play, to eventually build America's culture. Tell me that is not geared towards better marketing in the USA. The other nationalities get maybe one or two wonders. The USA has a bunch.

 

[monkspider]

This may deserve a timely bump in light of the recent news.