Absolution
King
Bornu - this leaderhead can be good for Idris Alooma:
(from cybrxkhan's World of Legends)
And Edo can be represented by Ewuare, if you find a good art for him.
Feedback: Civilizations
- Thread starter Xyth
- Start date
Bornu - this leaderhead can be good for Idris Alooma:
(from cybrxkhan's World of Legends)
And Edo can be represented by Ewuare, if you find a good art for him.
The_Athenian
Chieftain
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2013
- Messages
- 53
New Unique unit for the Sioux?
I have recently been playing a game on a real world map as the Sioux.
One of their unique units is a horse archer. On a real world map this mean the unique unit isn't available until contact has been made with the old world. By the time Europeans show up the unique unit is obsolete. I understand that is historically accurate, but you end up never using it all.
I think when the Sioux came into their own as a powerful nation on the plains it was due in part to the arrival of the horse, but also the use of firearms.
Instead of a Horse Archer UU the Sioux should have a Calvary UU.
I have recently been playing a game on a real world map as the Sioux.
One of their unique units is a horse archer. On a real world map this mean the unique unit isn't available until contact has been made with the old world. By the time Europeans show up the unique unit is obsolete. I understand that is historically accurate, but you end up never using it all.
I think when the Sioux came into their own as a powerful nation on the plains it was due in part to the arrival of the horse, but also the use of firearms.
Instead of a Horse Archer UU the Sioux should have a Calvary UU.
AbsintheRed
Deity
Hey Xyth, nice to see the latest updates on your mod 
May I ask your current civ and leader plans?
AFAIK the last time the best civ candidates were: Armenia, Khazars, Burma, maybe Bulgaria
With Elam, Harappa and Olmec also considered very good options, but too few information about them to make it possible :/
Also, I'm very much for adding another south american native civ, probably the Mapuche is the best option there
Anything I miss?
May I ask your current civ and leader plans?
AFAIK the last time the best civ candidates were: Armenia, Khazars, Burma, maybe Bulgaria
With Elam, Harappa and Olmec also considered very good options, but too few information about them to make it possible :/
Also, I'm very much for adding another south american native civ, probably the Mapuche is the best option there
Anything I miss?
ales_
Heir
The Mississippians were one of the best candidates.
AbsintheRed
Deity
Oh, yeah, you are right, they would indeed be a nice civ
But I'm afraid they may have to go in the not enough info/material category, right beside the Harappans
Mississippians and Burma are the most likely to be added next, though I've not started work on either yet. The faith and tenets system is the major focus of my efforts for the moment. Once that's done and people are able to test it I'll see how feasible adding a new civ is to 1.22.
ales_
Heir
What about new leaders?
Leaders are much easier to add than entire civilizations, so I'll certainly add a few towards the end of 1.22's development. Not given any thought to which yet.
Wow, I finally get to post, so cool
As a mac user, I can't tell you how amazing it is to have this mod to play with, I think it is the best one, especially for people who aren't necessarily into a highly war oriented strategy of play.
On that note, I've been playing the North America scenario recently and noticed that there are no leaders with a creative trait. I tend to mostly play for cultural victories and it would be great to have a leader with that advantageous trait in the hemisphere, either an addition to an existing civ or one added to a new civ if you decide to go that way.
As a mac user, I can't tell you how amazing it is to have this mod to play with, I think it is the best one, especially for people who aren't necessarily into a highly war oriented strategy of play. On that note, I've been playing the North America scenario recently and noticed that there are no leaders with a creative trait. I tend to mostly play for cultural victories and it would be great to have a leader with that advantageous trait in the hemisphere, either an addition to an existing civ or one added to a new civ if you decide to go that way.
ales_
Heir
You have said once that you want every unique element to be named as it is named in the language of this civ. I want to post you my suggestions (although they may be wrong).
Here are my suggestions for EUROPE:
Dun - Dún or Dùn (depending on the language)
Man of War - Man-of-War
Globe Theatre - The Globe Theatre
Musketeer - Mousquetaire
The Louvre - Musée du Louvre
Fluyt - Fluijt
Amsterdam Bourse - Amsterdamse effectenbeurs
Berserk - Berserker
Drekar - these ships were listed only in some sources, with no archaeological proof. Maybe use another Viking Longship name?
Trading Post - I can't find an appropriate name but it must be changed.
The Sagas - Sögur
Winged Hussar - Husaria
Cossack - Kozaky or Kazaki (depending on the language)
Belltower - Kolokol'nya
Hermitage - Ermitazh
Lovasíjász - Lovasíjászat
Huszar - Huszár
The Turul - Turul
Here are my suggestions for EUROPE:
Dun - Dún or Dùn (depending on the language)
Man of War - Man-of-War
Globe Theatre - The Globe Theatre
Musketeer - Mousquetaire
The Louvre - Musée du Louvre
Fluyt - Fluijt
Amsterdam Bourse - Amsterdamse effectenbeurs
Berserk - Berserker
Drekar - these ships were listed only in some sources, with no archaeological proof. Maybe use another Viking Longship name?
Trading Post - I can't find an appropriate name but it must be changed.
The Sagas - Sögur
Winged Hussar - Husaria
Cossack - Kozaky or Kazaki (depending on the language)
Belltower - Kolokol'nya
Hermitage - Ermitazh
Lovasíjász - Lovasíjászat
Huszar - Huszár
The Turul - Turul
ales_
Heir
Xyth, what do you think about this?
Here are my suggestions for MEDITERRANEAN:
Hoplite - Hoplitēs
Trireme - Triērēs
Odeon - Ōideion
Iliad and Odyssey - Ilias kai Odysseia
Legionary - Legio
Flamethrower - Siphōn
Cataphract - Kataphraktos
Hippodrome - Hippodromos
Bireme - it's very difficult to find a translation.
Atlas Elephant - I really don't know.
Cothon - Once again, it isn't Phoenician or Punic.
War Harbour - Maybe Latin or Greek should be used instead?
Conquistador - Conquistadores
Citadel - Ciudadela
Carrack - Nau
Here are my suggestions for MEDITERRANEAN:
Hoplite - Hoplitēs
Trireme - Triērēs
Odeon - Ōideion
Iliad and Odyssey - Ilias kai Odysseia
Legionary - Legio
Flamethrower - Siphōn
Cataphract - Kataphraktos
Hippodrome - Hippodromos
Bireme - it's very difficult to find a translation.
Atlas Elephant - I really don't know.
Cothon - Once again, it isn't Phoenician or Punic.
War Harbour - Maybe Latin or Greek should be used instead?
Conquistador - Conquistadores
Citadel - Ciudadela
Carrack - Nau
It's not so much that I want to use the civ's native language, but rather that I prefer to avoid generic English names. For example, I renamed the Chinese UB to 'Tíng' because 'Pavilion' has far too broad a meaning in English to accurately describe the structure. Much better to use the Mandarin term. In contrast, 'Obelisk' is Greek, not Egyptian, but it's a very familiar and specific term, so I choose to keep using it in HR.
It's essentially a balancing act between familiarity and accuracy, and I prefer to weigh each case on its own merits rather than apply a consistent approach to all.
I haven't got time right now to review your suggestions throughly, but at first glance some seem to make sense, others I think we're better off sticking with the English transliterations.
It's essentially a balancing act between familiarity and accuracy, and I prefer to weigh each case on its own merits rather than apply a consistent approach to all.
I haven't got time right now to review your suggestions throughly, but at first glance some seem to make sense, others I think we're better off sticking with the English transliterations.
ales_
Heir
Oh, then I have misunderstood you. I don't think I'll continue to do it.
ales_
Heir
I've discovered that I've got a lot of new thoughts or questions about new leaders. I know that currently you're busy with other aspects of the mod but I just have time now so I'll post it now but feel free to answer later when you'll have free time. Oh, BTW, don't type the answer in Safari. Type it elsewhere and copy-paste here. 
Celts
Llywelyn of Wales would be a good addition. The only problem I see is that 4 of 5 leaders would represent Insular Celts. I'm not sure if this is good.
England
With Alfred of Wessex added, all the main periods of English history would be represented.
Netherlands
Do the Netherlands represent the whole Benelux? If yes, Leopold II of Belgium can be added.
France
Well, I've found more arguments for replacing Richelieu with Karolus:
1) There is a big gap between Clovis and Richelieu, and a too small between Richelieu and Louis (they were even alive at the same time!). There are better gaps between Clovis and Karolus, Karolus and Richelieu.
2) IMO, every culture/state should be represented with one civ. For example, even though the Celts are the ancestors of the English and the French, they are represented only by Celts. The Franks should be represented only by one civ and I think it should be France.
3) There are 2 other good leaders for Germany which can be both added if Karolus is removed.
Germany
If you remove Karolus, both Barbarossa and Hitler can be added. Then Germany would be represented by Barbarossa, Maximilian, Frederick, Bismarck, Hitler. Sounds good enough for me.
Scandinavia
I don't know. This civ represents several states with a rather long history. Maybe a 4th leader can be added.
Poland
I think 4 leaders can be afforded. Casimir, Vytautas, Sobieski, Pilsudski sounds good for me.
Russia
An ideal combination would be Yaroslav, representing Kiev, Alexander, representing Novgorod, Ivan, representing the Duchy and Tsardom, Peter, representing the Empire (Yekaterina would fill the gap better but Peter is far more important), Stalin, representing the USSR. I'd really love to see the Principality of Polotsk represented (by Vseslav) but I'm probably biased.
Hungary
I think three leaders is good enough.
Greece
A 5th leader from the Hellinistic period would be good.
Rome
Are Romans and Italians the same people? If yes, I'm happy for them to stay as one civ. About leaders, 3 leaders should be Roman and 2 Italian. I'm happy with the Italian ones but it may be more beautiful for the 3 Roman leaders to represent the Kingdom, the Republic and the Empire, although adding a Kingdom leader just for the sake of it doesn't seem right. Having both Julius and Augustus also bothers me but they're representing different states, so that's OK for me.
Byzantium
Three leaders are probably enough for Byzantium.
Phoenicia
The only other possible leader I can see is a Phoenician leader representing another city-state (not Sur).
Spain
You've said (written) that colonial countries are covered by their "parent" civilization but it was never represented with leaders. Spain is a perfect example to show it because there are plenty of worthy Latin American leaders. Just pick one of them.
Portugal
Maria would be a great 4th leader.
Egypt
Three leaders is definitely enough and they are probably the greatest of the Egyptian history.
Nubia
Three leaders (with Merkurios) would be OK.
Ethiopia
Four leaders is a good amount for an African civ.
Berbers
I think they deserve more leaders. You can add a leader of Numidia or Garamantes, maybe both.
Mali
I'm glad with the current four leaders.
Kongo
Two leaders, one representing the kingdom and one its vassals, are good.
Swahili
What does this civ represent? Only the city-states or something else?
Zulu
What does this cov represent? A period of 81 years during 10 of which it wasn't even independent?
Sumer
Two leaders are OK.
Amurru
Unless you want to represent another city-statrle, three leaders are enough.
Assyria
Three leaders are (more than) enough.
Hatti
The Hittite Kingdom's vassals and related allies, and the Neo-Hittite city-states of Syria aren't represented. It may be good to represent them.
Israel
I'm really not sure. Maybe a modern leader is needed, maybe not.
Arabia
The five current leaders please me both historically and geographically.
Persia
I'm absolutely sure that unfortunately both Achaemenid leaders can't stay. A Median leader (Cyaxares, for example) can be added. What concerns the 5th leader, either a Parthian or a more modern one.
Kushan
Covering only one empire isn't very good. Does it have continuity with some other states?
Turks
I'm really confused now what they represent.
Mongolia
What is Mongolia representing?
Tibet
Two leaders are probably enough..
India
India absolutely needs a 5th leader, either a Pala emperor or Shivaji Bhosle.
Tamil
A third, Vijayanagara leader would be a good addition.
Siam
After the addition of Naresuan, the three main kingdoms of Siam would be represented.
Angkor
Currently, both leaders represent the Khmer Empire. What else does this civ represent?
Vietnam
Three leaders are enough and are from different historical periods.
Indonesia
The Muslim states and the Malay still aren't represented. I'm not sure whether a 4th leader is needed.
China
China deserves a 5th leader. Probably the best cchoice is a Han.
Korea
Three leaders are good.
Japan
I'd like to see a Kamakura leader.
Polynesia
As the only civ in its region, representing a lot of different islands, I think a 4th leader, representing Tahiti or Rapanui, can be added.
America
Three leaders are enough. We have three leaders representing the three centuries of the existence of the USA (the 21st is too recent). So, in the following 40 years or so, America would be good with the current leaders.
Iroquois
Two leaders are good
Sioux
The only thing that bothers me is the fact that both leaders are Lakota and Eastern Dakota and Western David's aren't represented.
Anasazi
Where have you found information about Kochininako?
Aztec
I'm OK with two leaders but Montezuma should be replaced with the most important tlatoani, but I'm really not a specialist.
Maya
A third leader is acceptable.
Inca
I'm not sure if they have enough connection with the Wari.
Brazil
I'm not sure that a third leader is needed.
Celts
Llywelyn of Wales would be a good addition. The only problem I see is that 4 of 5 leaders would represent Insular Celts. I'm not sure if this is good.
England
With Alfred of Wessex added, all the main periods of English history would be represented.
Netherlands
Do the Netherlands represent the whole Benelux? If yes, Leopold II of Belgium can be added.
France
Well, I've found more arguments for replacing Richelieu with Karolus:
1) There is a big gap between Clovis and Richelieu, and a too small between Richelieu and Louis (they were even alive at the same time!). There are better gaps between Clovis and Karolus, Karolus and Richelieu.
2) IMO, every culture/state should be represented with one civ. For example, even though the Celts are the ancestors of the English and the French, they are represented only by Celts. The Franks should be represented only by one civ and I think it should be France.
3) There are 2 other good leaders for Germany which can be both added if Karolus is removed.
Germany
If you remove Karolus, both Barbarossa and Hitler can be added. Then Germany would be represented by Barbarossa, Maximilian, Frederick, Bismarck, Hitler. Sounds good enough for me.
Scandinavia
I don't know. This civ represents several states with a rather long history. Maybe a 4th leader can be added.
Poland
I think 4 leaders can be afforded. Casimir, Vytautas, Sobieski, Pilsudski sounds good for me.
Russia
An ideal combination would be Yaroslav, representing Kiev, Alexander, representing Novgorod, Ivan, representing the Duchy and Tsardom, Peter, representing the Empire (Yekaterina would fill the gap better but Peter is far more important), Stalin, representing the USSR. I'd really love to see the Principality of Polotsk represented (by Vseslav) but I'm probably biased.
Hungary
I think three leaders is good enough.
Greece
A 5th leader from the Hellinistic period would be good.
Rome
Are Romans and Italians the same people? If yes, I'm happy for them to stay as one civ. About leaders, 3 leaders should be Roman and 2 Italian. I'm happy with the Italian ones but it may be more beautiful for the 3 Roman leaders to represent the Kingdom, the Republic and the Empire, although adding a Kingdom leader just for the sake of it doesn't seem right. Having both Julius and Augustus also bothers me but they're representing different states, so that's OK for me.
Byzantium
Three leaders are probably enough for Byzantium.
Phoenicia
The only other possible leader I can see is a Phoenician leader representing another city-state (not Sur).
Spain
You've said (written) that colonial countries are covered by their "parent" civilization but it was never represented with leaders. Spain is a perfect example to show it because there are plenty of worthy Latin American leaders. Just pick one of them.
Portugal
Maria would be a great 4th leader.
Egypt
Three leaders is definitely enough and they are probably the greatest of the Egyptian history.
Nubia
Three leaders (with Merkurios) would be OK.
Ethiopia
Four leaders is a good amount for an African civ.
Berbers
I think they deserve more leaders. You can add a leader of Numidia or Garamantes, maybe both.
Mali
I'm glad with the current four leaders.
Kongo
Two leaders, one representing the kingdom and one its vassals, are good.
Swahili
What does this civ represent? Only the city-states or something else?
Zulu
What does this cov represent? A period of 81 years during 10 of which it wasn't even independent?
Sumer
Two leaders are OK.
Amurru
Unless you want to represent another city-statrle, three leaders are enough.
Assyria
Three leaders are (more than) enough.
Hatti
The Hittite Kingdom's vassals and related allies, and the Neo-Hittite city-states of Syria aren't represented. It may be good to represent them.
Israel
I'm really not sure. Maybe a modern leader is needed, maybe not.
Arabia
The five current leaders please me both historically and geographically.
Persia
I'm absolutely sure that unfortunately both Achaemenid leaders can't stay. A Median leader (Cyaxares, for example) can be added. What concerns the 5th leader, either a Parthian or a more modern one.
Kushan
Covering only one empire isn't very good. Does it have continuity with some other states?
Turks
I'm really confused now what they represent.
Mongolia
What is Mongolia representing?
Tibet
Two leaders are probably enough..
India
India absolutely needs a 5th leader, either a Pala emperor or Shivaji Bhosle.
Tamil
A third, Vijayanagara leader would be a good addition.
Siam
After the addition of Naresuan, the three main kingdoms of Siam would be represented.
Angkor
Currently, both leaders represent the Khmer Empire. What else does this civ represent?
Vietnam
Three leaders are enough and are from different historical periods.
Indonesia
The Muslim states and the Malay still aren't represented. I'm not sure whether a 4th leader is needed.
China
China deserves a 5th leader. Probably the best cchoice is a Han.
Korea
Three leaders are good.
Japan
I'd like to see a Kamakura leader.
Polynesia
As the only civ in its region, representing a lot of different islands, I think a 4th leader, representing Tahiti or Rapanui, can be added.
America
Three leaders are enough. We have three leaders representing the three centuries of the existence of the USA (the 21st is too recent). So, in the following 40 years or so, America would be good with the current leaders.
Iroquois
Two leaders are good
Sioux
The only thing that bothers me is the fact that both leaders are Lakota and Eastern Dakota and Western David's aren't represented.
Anasazi
Where have you found information about Kochininako?
Aztec
I'm OK with two leaders but Montezuma should be replaced with the most important tlatoani, but I'm really not a specialist.
Maya
A third leader is acceptable.
Inca
I'm not sure if they have enough connection with the Wari.
Brazil
I'm not sure that a third leader is needed.
ales_
Heir
Xyth, have you seen it?
Little Faith
Warlord
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2009
- Messages
- 183
I think his priority right now is to make the new faith system work flawlessly.
Yes, I just haven't had time to comment on it yet. Has been a very busy week.
Hasn't been any reports of errors in the last dev version update for a while, so the next one will be the beta proper. Currently trying to get all the loose ends of the Faith/Tenets system tidied up (writing concept articles, fixing tooltips, missing icons, etc). After that I plan to add a few leaders, so I'll be looking at this topic then.
ales_
Heir
I'm OK with it but I want to hear an answer eventually.
Absolution
King
Not really.
Anglo-Saxon England had a wider history to be covered.
What about something like Ethelbert of Kent? Redwald of East Anglia?
But that would cause a sixth leader so it's not really possible.
You should not only think about how known those leaders were.
Germany had much greater leaders to represent those too eras:
Otto I instead of Frederick I (Barbarossa)
Konard Adenauer instead of Hitler...
Depends on what you mean when you use the term "Italians".
- The Italic peoples? those are the Indo-European peoples of the peninsula, with Latins included of course.
- The Italian culture? the new social and political form of the peninsula after the fall of the Goths and the Lombards, which has developed continuously into what we know today.
My opinion is that it can be considered as two different civilization, but according to HR's philosophy it's hardly is - Those two completely share their ethnicity and their location.
Or two.
It is much more important than the periods of Argentonio.
I wouldn't have considered him a "Spaniard" at all, but never mind.
And I think that there must be at least one leader of a pre-Castilian northern Iberian state (Alfonso III of Asturias, Sancho III of Navarre, James I / Peter II of Aragon...)
I think it is by far less needed than many other leaders.
It can be a broader civilization of the South African natives which are hard to bring together.
If you want a Zulu leader from a different era.... I'll just mention that Nelson Mandela was a Zulu
Medians are not Persians.
Both spoke Western Iranian languages, but did not share the same culture.
Medians also don't solve the problem - they have been contemporaries of the Achaemenids.
Mithridates I of Persia can be a nice addition,
And if we drop one Achaemenid, we gain room for an essential pre-Mongol Islamic leader: Mahmud of Ghazni, Muhammad Ghori....
I agree, this civilization must be split.
I have already expressed my thoughts of the term "India"...
I think it can only stand for the later, Islamic/British/Modern idea of an Indian political entity.
The rest are completely different civilizations.
They are not Tamils, but Kannadigas.
Anyway, Xyth has changed it to a Dravidian civilization, which can include Vijayanagra, and Must(!) include Krishna Deva Raya.
Or a pre-Qin!
Zumbi would be perfect to complete the three ethnicities of Brazil. Probably any art of a young African ruler that isn't too magnificently dressed can fit for him.
Nightstar
Prince
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2012
- Messages
- 408
I haven't been reporting anything because I haven't really had time to test lately.
I still have yet to even get into the Classical era on any of the dev versions.Similar threads
