You can already make replacement for musketman, and perhaps pikeman, with the Cossacks units. Same for cavalyr if you don't mind some anachronism
Flavor Units Project
- Thread starter Dom Pedro II
- Start date
In my case, Greek "become" Byzantine. That way I can use Greek units for Ancient, Byzantine one for middle ages.
No, break it down into something like this:
African:
Zulus
Southern Asia:
Indians
Persians
Central Asia:
Chinese
Koreans
Mongols
Pacific Islander:
Japanese
North American:
Iroquois
South American:
Aztecs
Inca
Mayans
Northern European:
Americans
English
Celts
Dutch
French
Germans
Russians
Vikings
Mediterranean:
Carthaginians
Greeks
Ottomans
Portuguese
Romans
Spanish
Middle Eastern:
Arabs
Babylonians
Egyptians
Hittites
Sumerians
These are just my suggestions for how to split up the civs. I have included 30 of the civs that will be in Conquests just to get a jump-start on those.
I was tempted to throw the DyP civs in there as well, since that is all I play, but figured I would hold off unless others wanted me to include them as well.
Dom Pedro II
Modder For Life
Well, there's a rigorous testing process to determine acceptable applicants.
Of course, since I founded the Flavor Units Project, I was of course an immediate member....
But really all you'd have to do is talk the leader of the organization, which... considering that I am currently the only member, that'd be me!
But seriously, I know there are some other unit creators who are willing to help... whether they want to be considered card-carrying members of this organized group effort, I can't say.
Nder: I'll work on the groups and take your advice into consideration, unfortunately, right now.. I have a class to get to! Ta ta!
Of course, since I founded the Flavor Units Project, I was of course an immediate member....
But really all you'd have to do is talk the leader of the organization, which... considering that I am currently the only member, that'd be me!
But seriously, I know there are some other unit creators who are willing to help... whether they want to be considered card-carrying members of this organized group effort, I can't say.
Nder: I'll work on the groups and take your advice into consideration, unfortunately, right now.. I have a class to get to! Ta ta!
Dom Pedro II
Modder For Life
Steph, I'd rather not use any converted units as I think it would be better to have it based purely from original works (even if their based on models available on the internet and not made right from stratch). That way, it can be free for some OTHER expansion pack should Firaxis ever choose to make one, and in fact, some of these will be in Conquests already.
Dom Pedro II
Modder For Life
Also... what I would like from supporters of this project is ideas for the flavor units... specific names or types for whatever units are to fill the gaps. Provide pictures if possible. Whatever you can to make it easier for the designers.
NOTE: Do not post suggestions for a unit that is not a replacement for an existing unit. This isn't a general request thread....
NOTE: Do not post suggestions for a unit that is not a replacement for an existing unit. This isn't a general request thread....
Dom Pedro II
Modder For Life
Great!
MightyMaus
Chieftain
I have a bunch of names ready, Dom. I can have it all compiled after this weekend, it's kinda messy. 
I agree that we should stray away from the default Civ 3 Culture groups and regroup as Nder suggested. I don't know if I'd put Japan down as Pacific Islander; culturally, they've always been much closer to Japan and Korea. But hey.
Anyhow, I think this could be an awesome project, and I'll get that list all made up (a good half of it is scrawled in a notebook somewhere around here).
I agree that we should stray away from the default Civ 3 Culture groups and regroup as Nder suggested. I don't know if I'd put Japan down as Pacific Islander; culturally, they've always been much closer to Japan and Korea. But hey.Anyhow, I think this could be an awesome project, and I'll get that list all made up (a good half of it is scrawled in a notebook somewhere around here).
aaminion00
Stoned
I still don't like the cultural group idea that much.
First of all, no matter how you split it, you'd have a hard job making units that would really make sense for the civs in those culture groups, that could later be incorporated as flavor units for individual civs.
Second, either way, it'd still be the same amount of work. The only difference would be that you'd be working based on culture groups for the first phase of this project, and then the real civs afterward.
Third, if we just work on individual civs, anybody with a hint of intelligence would be able to take them and give them to the culture group they want. Look at the Villista by UtahJazz7. It was made as a Riffleman replacement for the Aztecs, but in my game it's the riffleman flavor unit for ALL South/Central American civs. It's easy enough for modders to do, and it would allow us to create better more civ-speciffic units, filling out both culture-groups and individual civs without sacrificing some great specific units.
Fourth, for some units you simply couldn't do this. Mech infantry and Modern Armor come to mind. Almost all of the civs have a unique version of those two units, and it would be a noticeable fault to have two civs with completely different tanks/mech infantry in real life to have to share them in the game.
It IS an idea that would make it very interesting, but I think that it's desired effects could quickly be accomplished by just going along like we are now, and it would make things a lot better and simpler.
First of all, no matter how you split it, you'd have a hard job making units that would really make sense for the civs in those culture groups, that could later be incorporated as flavor units for individual civs.
Second, either way, it'd still be the same amount of work. The only difference would be that you'd be working based on culture groups for the first phase of this project, and then the real civs afterward.
Third, if we just work on individual civs, anybody with a hint of intelligence would be able to take them and give them to the culture group they want. Look at the Villista by UtahJazz7. It was made as a Riffleman replacement for the Aztecs, but in my game it's the riffleman flavor unit for ALL South/Central American civs. It's easy enough for modders to do, and it would allow us to create better more civ-speciffic units, filling out both culture-groups and individual civs without sacrificing some great specific units.
Fourth, for some units you simply couldn't do this. Mech infantry and Modern Armor come to mind. Almost all of the civs have a unique version of those two units, and it would be a noticeable fault to have two civs with completely different tanks/mech infantry in real life to have to share them in the game.
It IS an idea that would make it very interesting, but I think that it's desired effects could quickly be accomplished by just going along like we are now, and it would make things a lot better and simpler.
Aaminion, you mentioned how almost all civs have unique versions of Modern Armor and Mech Infantry...you forget, Most armor tends to closely resemble, Like the Leo2 and the Type 90, and not only that but depending on the civ, you can share tanks, and if not totaly share, some tanks, like a few nations whos tanks are on T-72/80/90 chasssis, then you can always rework the turret. Though some will have to be completely custom if created, like the Aztecs and iriqouis. but yeah...uit's too early and i've a cat in my lap so i'll cease this.
@ aaminion00:
The reason I suggested cutting it up initially into culture groups, was not to diminish the total amount of work, the end goal is still to have unique flavor units for all civs for all units, but rather, it was to lesson the shock and awe effect of looking at 47 units for 30 civs (since we already have the original 47 units we can subtract one civ from mix) all at once, which is 1410 units minus those that have already been made. 1410 units, that can be a little intimidating.
Rather if we just start by looking at 47 units for 8 culture groups (376minus the ones that are already made) it seems a lot less daunting of a task. 1410 units might scare off some people from even attempting the project. 376 seems a lot more reasonable, especially after you subtract the ones we already have.
Also, I think we can probably just use the same ICBM, tac nuke and cruise missile for all civs. Likewise we may want to just reuse the Stealth Fighter and Stealth Bomber for everybody. That is unless you guys know of another country that has a different version of these planes.
If we reuse those units then we are really only looking at 42 units for all the civs, then on top of that we can count the UU's so thats another 1 that is already made for all the civs, so we are down to only needing 41 units per civ.
So, we can either say we are aiming to create 1230 units or 328 units.
I think shooting for 328 units as a first goal is much more realistic than going for 1230 units right from the start. Maybe its just me.
The reason I suggested cutting it up initially into culture groups, was not to diminish the total amount of work, the end goal is still to have unique flavor units for all civs for all units, but rather, it was to lesson the shock and awe effect of looking at 47 units for 30 civs (since we already have the original 47 units we can subtract one civ from mix) all at once, which is 1410 units minus those that have already been made. 1410 units, that can be a little intimidating.
Rather if we just start by looking at 47 units for 8 culture groups (376minus the ones that are already made) it seems a lot less daunting of a task. 1410 units might scare off some people from even attempting the project. 376 seems a lot more reasonable, especially after you subtract the ones we already have.
Also, I think we can probably just use the same ICBM, tac nuke and cruise missile for all civs. Likewise we may want to just reuse the Stealth Fighter and Stealth Bomber for everybody. That is unless you guys know of another country that has a different version of these planes.
If we reuse those units then we are really only looking at 42 units for all the civs, then on top of that we can count the UU's so thats another 1 that is already made for all the civs, so we are down to only needing 41 units per civ.
So, we can either say we are aiming to create 1230 units or 328 units.
I think shooting for 328 units as a first goal is much more realistic than going for 1230 units right from the start. Maybe its just me.
aaminion00
Stoned
yah, I understandI'm just saying, lets still keep these culture-group units specific enough so that while they can apply to the whole culture group, they could also later on be perfect for an individual civ. If we were to do that, I'd be behind it 100%.
I completely agree 100%
I think we should first divide into culture groups and pick the best representative specific unit for that culture group for each specific unit. That way they can later be used for the correct civ.
So, if we take a look at the Asian Group, we have China, Korea and Mongolia.
They have/need:
Scout:
Settler:
Worker:
Explorer:
Warrior: [Would use Mongolian looking Warrior]
Spearman: Chinese Spearman (Kinboat)
Archer: [Would use Mongolian looking Archer]
Swordsman: Chinese Swordsman (Kinboat)
Pikeman: [Would use some Chinese Soldier]
Longbowman: [could use a new Chok'nu Crossbowman or the PtW Stone Crossbowman if given bolts rather than pellets]
Medieval Infantry: [Would use Chinese looking Soldier]
Musketman: [Could actullay use the Japanese Arquebusier]
Rifleman: [Should use a Chinese Boxer looking Soldier - actually the Kinboat's unit is dressed to fit this period]
Infantry: [Would use some WWII Nationalist Chinese Soldier]
Guerilla: [Would use some WWII Communist Chinese Soldier]
Paratrooper: [North Korean Paratrooper]
Marines: [North Korean Marine]
Horseman: [Use Mongolian looking Unit]
Knight: [Need Korean unit since China and Mongolia both have UU]
Cavalry: [Use Chinese looking Unit]
Tank: [Use Chinese WWII Tank, is there one?]
Mech Infantry: KAFV (utahjazz7)
Modern Armor:
Catapult:
Cannon:
Artillery:
Radar Artillery:
Fighter:
Bomber:
Jet Fighter:
Stealth Fighter:
Stealth Bomber:
Helicoptor:
Cruise Missile:
Tactical Missile:
ICBM:
Galley: Tongkang (TVA22), Junk (TVA22)
Caravel: Advanced Tongkang (TVA22), Junk (TVA22)
Galleon: Boade Luan (aaglo)
Frigate: Singapore Tongkang (embryodead), Turtle Ship (Aaglo)
Ironclad:
Destroyer:
Battleship:
Submarine:
Aircraft Carrier:
Nuclear Submarine:
AEGIS Cruiser:
----------
anyway, youget the idea.
I think we should first divide into culture groups and pick the best representative specific unit for that culture group for each specific unit. That way they can later be used for the correct civ.
So, if we take a look at the Asian Group, we have China, Korea and Mongolia.
They have/need:
Scout:
Settler:
Worker:
Explorer:
Warrior: [Would use Mongolian looking Warrior]
Spearman: Chinese Spearman (Kinboat)
Archer: [Would use Mongolian looking Archer]
Swordsman: Chinese Swordsman (Kinboat)
Pikeman: [Would use some Chinese Soldier]
Longbowman: [could use a new Chok'nu Crossbowman or the PtW Stone Crossbowman if given bolts rather than pellets]
Medieval Infantry: [Would use Chinese looking Soldier]
Musketman: [Could actullay use the Japanese Arquebusier]
Rifleman: [Should use a Chinese Boxer looking Soldier - actually the Kinboat's unit is dressed to fit this period]
Infantry: [Would use some WWII Nationalist Chinese Soldier]
Guerilla: [Would use some WWII Communist Chinese Soldier]
Paratrooper: [North Korean Paratrooper]
Marines: [North Korean Marine]
Horseman: [Use Mongolian looking Unit]
Knight: [Need Korean unit since China and Mongolia both have UU]
Cavalry: [Use Chinese looking Unit]
Tank: [Use Chinese WWII Tank, is there one?]
Mech Infantry: KAFV (utahjazz7)
Modern Armor:
Catapult:
Cannon:
Artillery:
Radar Artillery:
Fighter:
Bomber:
Jet Fighter:
Stealth Fighter:
Stealth Bomber:
Helicoptor:
Cruise Missile:
Tactical Missile:
ICBM:
Galley: Tongkang (TVA22), Junk (TVA22)
Caravel: Advanced Tongkang (TVA22), Junk (TVA22)
Galleon: Boade Luan (aaglo)
Frigate: Singapore Tongkang (embryodead), Turtle Ship (Aaglo)
Ironclad:
Destroyer:
Battleship:
Submarine:
Aircraft Carrier:
Nuclear Submarine:
AEGIS Cruiser:
----------
anyway, youget the idea.
Dom Pedro II
Modder For Life
Hey, thanks a lot for the interest, guys! Keep it up... I want as much stuff as possible to work with. Unfortunately, I don't really have the time to debate or do any updating to the lists... I'm doing a secret project right now for Kal-El for DyP, which thankfully will also further the Flavor Units Project as well... 
Anyway, at the absolute latest I'll get back to y'all on Sunday night... ta ta!
Anyway, at the absolute latest I'll get back to y'all on Sunday night... ta ta!
Kryten
Smeee heeeeed
I think that this is a great project. 
And I do agree with both Nder and aamination00....over a thousand new units is a bit intimidating, while the culture groups are just a guideline.
I'm up to my neck with units at the moment, so am unable to take on any new requests (although some of my promised list may be of some use....thus killing two birds with one stone so to speak).
However, I do have some observations.
Can I assume that the new flavour units are to be historically accurate, where possible?
If so, then there may be a slight problem.
You see, some of the unit names are historically wrong.
Take the following for example:-
* The Greeks never used 'Swordsmen'.
* The native American civs didn't have 'Horsemen' until after gunpowder.
* Only the English ever used 'Longbowmen'.
* American civs never had 'Pikemen', 'Knights', or 'Medieval Infantry'.
(In fact, only the European 'culture group' should have these units).
Plus many other examples.
If I have read Dom Pedro II's suggestion correctly, then the idea is to have new visual animations for each civ, without changing the current game balance.
So may I suggest the following:-
Instead of trying to decide what a Greek Swordsman should look like (which they never used), or what a American civ's Pikeman should look like (which they never had), we give them a new animation WITH A NEW NAME, even if it has the ORIGINAL stats.
For example.....
* The Greeks didn't use 'Swordsmen', so give them a 'Citizen or Mercenary Hoplite' unit instead, with stats of 3-2-1.
* The native American civs didn't have horses until the Middle Ages, so give them a 'Brave' unit instead with stats of 2-1-2.
* Only the English used 'Longbowmen', so every other civ (except the American ones) have 'Crossbowmen' with stats of 4-1-1.
* Medieval Byzantine Greeks didn't have 'Pikemen' and 'Knights', so give them 'Scutatoi' and 'Cataphracts', with stats of 1-3-1 & 4-3-2 respectively.
* Historically, the Carthaginians, Spanish, and Celts, plus the ancient French, English, and Germans, didn't use 'Archers', so give them 'Javelinmen' with stats of 2-1-1 instead (under construction ).
* Maybe the native Americans could have a unit called say 'Elder Warrior', who represents the older tribal leader who is past their prime, is not fit enough go on raiding parties, but due to their experience they are able to defend their settlements with stats of 1-3-1 instead of 'Pikemen' perhaps.
And so on.
What I am suggesting is....if you are going to give them an historical animation, then give them an historical name as well....even if the stats don't change.
Just a thought.
And I do agree with both Nder and aamination00....over a thousand new units is a bit intimidating, while the culture groups are just a guideline.
I'm up to my neck with units at the moment, so am unable to take on any new requests (although some of my promised list may be of some use....thus killing two birds with one stone so to speak).
However, I do have some observations.
Can I assume that the new flavour units are to be historically accurate, where possible?
If so, then there may be a slight problem.
You see, some of the unit names are historically wrong.
Take the following for example:-
* The Greeks never used 'Swordsmen'.
* The native American civs didn't have 'Horsemen' until after gunpowder.
* Only the English ever used 'Longbowmen'.
* American civs never had 'Pikemen', 'Knights', or 'Medieval Infantry'.
(In fact, only the European 'culture group' should have these units).
Plus many other examples.
If I have read Dom Pedro II's suggestion correctly, then the idea is to have new visual animations for each civ, without changing the current game balance.
So may I suggest the following:-
Instead of trying to decide what a Greek Swordsman should look like (which they never used), or what a American civ's Pikeman should look like (which they never had), we give them a new animation WITH A NEW NAME, even if it has the ORIGINAL stats.
For example.....
* The Greeks didn't use 'Swordsmen', so give them a 'Citizen or Mercenary Hoplite' unit instead, with stats of 3-2-1.
* The native American civs didn't have horses until the Middle Ages, so give them a 'Brave' unit instead with stats of 2-1-2.
* Only the English used 'Longbowmen', so every other civ (except the American ones) have 'Crossbowmen' with stats of 4-1-1.
* Medieval Byzantine Greeks didn't have 'Pikemen' and 'Knights', so give them 'Scutatoi' and 'Cataphracts', with stats of 1-3-1 & 4-3-2 respectively.
* Historically, the Carthaginians, Spanish, and Celts, plus the ancient French, English, and Germans, didn't use 'Archers', so give them 'Javelinmen' with stats of 2-1-1 instead (under construction
).* Maybe the native Americans could have a unit called say 'Elder Warrior', who represents the older tribal leader who is past their prime, is not fit enough go on raiding parties, but due to their experience they are able to defend their settlements with stats of 1-3-1 instead of 'Pikemen' perhaps.
And so on.
What I am suggesting is....if you are going to give them an historical animation, then give them an historical name as well....even if the stats don't change.
Just a thought.
Dom Pedro II
Modder For Life
I just want to reiterate again... I'm not suggesting we actually create 1000 new units. Not nearly so many. I would like to see civ-specific units only for units that could absolutely only belong to one civilization. If there are units that could be shared by civilizations of similar cultural background then they should be. Like what I'm doing with the camels. Also, some of the generic units suit certain civs just fine as it is... the Knight and Pikeman don't necessarily need to be replaced for the European civilizations. Also, ancient civilizations don't necessarily need their own Infantry, Bombers, Tanks, etc. That cuts down A LOT. We may only be talking about one or two hundred at the most, and with Conquests and DyP as well as whatever else people choose to do entirely on their own, that figure will decrease as well.
What I would like is to try to compromise on just what DOES need to be done. I didn't want to unilaterally decide "Well, the Sioux and the Iroquois could share the Archer but not the same Horsemen" or something like that.
Kryten: With regards to your suggestion, I think you have a very good point, but I don't think there's a need to make this system to rigid either. Yes, we can rename a lot of these units like in the example of the Cataphract for the Persians... or the Boade Luan as a Chinese alternative to the Galleon for example.
But I do not think that it is necessary to strip the Greeks of their swords and the Native Americans of their horses. After all, when we play mods as opposed to scenarios, we're still dealing with a fictional world. I realize that utah made a good point that if its all fictional, then all things being equal in this alternate world, why wouldn't they have just developed all the same stuff? But if we suppose that their cultures were to remain intact in this fictious world, we should expect that they would apply these resources and technologies in different ways and develop soldiers and equipment that would reflect their cultural identity. So for some of these units, I think it'd be good to play a little bit of "what if?" Fictional units but not fantasy units because they would still have to be plausible. But yes, I do agree that when very close alternatives can be found as with the Cataphract or the Mercenary/Citizen with the Greeks.
On the issue of the Longbowman, that right there is a complete nightmare and in general I think is beyond the scope of a purely graphical endeavor. This isn't meant to be a mod but rather a resource for mod-makers. What modders choose to do with the animations in their own business. I think in the case of the Longbowman its best to consider them in terms of what they are in the game, a Medieval attack weapon. Of course, we know that in real life they were anything but attackers, so we should try then to create a sort of alternative medieval infantry unit. It doesn't even necessarily have to be an archer. Although, if we want to keep it a bit closer to the idea of a medieval archer then we could perhaps make culture-specific units with larger bows than say their Archer predecessors.
And thanks for getting involved Kryten even if its only in discussion for now. The same goes to all unit creators as well. There's no time limit on this, so embryo, Kindred, Kinboat, if you guys find yourselves swamped now, no need to rush. Come back to this in a few weeks or months if need be.
What I would like is to try to compromise on just what DOES need to be done. I didn't want to unilaterally decide "Well, the Sioux and the Iroquois could share the Archer but not the same Horsemen" or something like that.
Kryten: With regards to your suggestion, I think you have a very good point, but I don't think there's a need to make this system to rigid either. Yes, we can rename a lot of these units like in the example of the Cataphract for the Persians... or the Boade Luan as a Chinese alternative to the Galleon for example.
But I do not think that it is necessary to strip the Greeks of their swords and the Native Americans of their horses. After all, when we play mods as opposed to scenarios, we're still dealing with a fictional world. I realize that utah made a good point that if its all fictional, then all things being equal in this alternate world, why wouldn't they have just developed all the same stuff? But if we suppose that their cultures were to remain intact in this fictious world, we should expect that they would apply these resources and technologies in different ways and develop soldiers and equipment that would reflect their cultural identity. So for some of these units, I think it'd be good to play a little bit of "what if?" Fictional units but not fantasy units because they would still have to be plausible. But yes, I do agree that when very close alternatives can be found as with the Cataphract or the Mercenary/Citizen with the Greeks.
On the issue of the Longbowman, that right there is a complete nightmare and in general I think is beyond the scope of a purely graphical endeavor. This isn't meant to be a mod but rather a resource for mod-makers. What modders choose to do with the animations in their own business. I think in the case of the Longbowman its best to consider them in terms of what they are in the game, a Medieval attack weapon. Of course, we know that in real life they were anything but attackers, so we should try then to create a sort of alternative medieval infantry unit. It doesn't even necessarily have to be an archer. Although, if we want to keep it a bit closer to the idea of a medieval archer then we could perhaps make culture-specific units with larger bows than say their Archer predecessors.
And thanks for getting involved Kryten even if its only in discussion for now.
The same goes to all unit creators as well. There's no time limit on this, so embryo, Kindred, Kinboat, if you guys find yourselves swamped now, no need to rush. Come back to this in a few weeks or months if need be.
Kryten
Smeee heeeeed
Yes, yes, yes Nder....of course the Greeks had swords. But they were secondary weapons, and only used in special cases, such as climbing siege ladders or if their spears were broken.....even then, they usually preferred to reverse their spears and continue fighting with the butt end instead.
The reason for this is quite simple....a sword is best used for thrusting. But if you put that sword blade on the end of a long pole, then it would outreach anyone with a short sword, giving you an advantage in battle.
The Macedonians (who were NOT Greeks, but absorbed a lot of Greek culture), took this to extremes by replacing a one-handed 3 metre spear for a two-handed 6 metre pike .thus outranging traditional Greek Hoplites.
Does this mean that spears and pikes were superior to Celts & Romans, who DID concentrate on the sword? No, because they had weapons that outranged even the pike....they carried javelins and pila as well as swords (although they only carried a handful).
Soooo....
The Persians traditionally used short 2 metre spears and bows....
The Greeks traditionally used long 3 metre spears & bronze shields....
The Macedonians used very long two-handed 6 metre pikes....
The Celts traditionally used javelins and slashing swords....
The Romans traditionally used pila and thrusting swords....
They ALL had swords, but they fought in different styles on the battlefield.
Think of it this way: modern soldiers carry pistols, but they use assault rifles in combat.
The reason for this is quite simple....a sword is best used for thrusting. But if you put that sword blade on the end of a long pole, then it would outreach anyone with a short sword, giving you an advantage in battle.
The Macedonians (who were NOT Greeks, but absorbed a lot of Greek culture), took this to extremes by replacing a one-handed 3 metre spear for a two-handed 6 metre pike .thus outranging traditional Greek Hoplites.
Does this mean that spears and pikes were superior to Celts & Romans, who DID concentrate on the sword? No, because they had weapons that outranged even the pike....they carried javelins and pila as well as swords (although they only carried a handful).
Soooo....
The Persians traditionally used short 2 metre spears and bows....
The Greeks traditionally used long 3 metre spears & bronze shields....
The Macedonians used very long two-handed 6 metre pikes....
The Celts traditionally used javelins and slashing swords....
The Romans traditionally used pila and thrusting swords....
They ALL had swords, but they fought in different styles on the battlefield.
Think of it this way: modern soldiers carry pistols, but they use assault rifles in combat.
