New UU's

[Iztvan]

Originally posted by wildWolverine
I know both the French and the Germans will hate this, but the French ARE German... The Franks, much more than the remaining Gallic people created France as it is today...

[ENTER RANT MODE]
Yes, they are German but are they German?
(apologies in advance for spelling, I can't speak or read french one bit!)

Most languages (but not english) make a differance between German (as in being of the ethnic/language group Germanic, sometimes called Teutonic in England/USA) and being of German nationality.
Some examples (pardon spelling, not native speaker):
The French call France "France" and Germany "Allemange".
The Germans say Frankreich/Fransosisch (France), Deutchland/Deutch (German) and german/germanish (Germanic)
The Swedes say Frankrike/Fransk, Tyskland/Tysk and german/germansk.
As comparison the English say France/French, Germany/German and german(teuton)/germanic(teutonic).

The French use of "Allemange" for Germany is intresting, since the Allemani were a germanic federation of tribes contemporary to the franks (not a tribe, but a group of tribes, just like the franks). Some scholars think that the word "Allemani" stems from the words "all" and "men".
The Franks migrated west into northern Gaul, while the Allemani stayed in the east (modern western germany). Even before they migrated west, the Franks were known to be somewhat darker than the Allemani and other germans, so it's quite possible that they already had been in more intimate contact with the roman/gaul people compared to other germans. The Franks were considered superior fighters compared to most contemporary west europeans (though no match for the byzantines, of course). They mixed with the romano-gaul culture of the native roman and gallic descendants.

The ethnic and cultural differance between northern France that the franks settled and southern France that they conquered later (southern france had been in the hands of the visigoths and the arabs, just like spain) were quite noticable even during the late middle ages. The northern french spoke "langue d'oeil" while the southern spoke "langue d'oc", and this culminated in the abligensian crusades during the 13th century. Yes, that's right, crusades versus fellow christians!

The people of modern germany are descendants of many tribes/tribal federations, among them Allemani, Saxons (my grandfather), Bavarians, some west-slavs, etc...
The people of moderns France are descendants of Franks, Gauls, Romans, Visigoths, Normans (=vikings), Alans, etc... When the construction of the modern french nation began in earnest, the national myth was based a lot on the Gaul heritage, rather than the Frank, even though this is more a matter of selfimage than anything else. Every nation needs some kind of orginmythic ...
[EXIT RANT MODE]

Sorry for the rant... favourite historical subject... could go on for ages...

 

[Doc Tsiolkovski]

But the really interesting question is: Why do the English call a Germanic (and, for geographic reasons also German) king with a French name?
I mean, I like the consistency to translate every name into English, so why is exactly this one ruler not Charles the Great?

 

[Iztvan]

Originally posted by Doc Tsiolkovski
But the really interesting question is: Why do the English call a Germanic (and, for geographic reasons also German) king with a French name?
I mean, I like the consistency to translate every name into English, so why is exactly this one ruler not Charles the Great?

You mean Charlemagne?
I guess it's because of the norman influence. The Englich upper class/nobility were mostly of norman descent due to the norman invasion of 1066. The normans were descendants of vikings who settled in northern france (normandie) and spoke french. So the English nobility spoke mainly french until the 15th century. So a medieval person gets a french name in english, I guess that's why.

 

[jack merchant]

Originally posted by W S Churchill

I was referring to the fact that the Dutch state, with all it's legislative infrastructure only matured into an independent state in 1648, as a result of the Treaty of Utrecht, thus finally dislodging the northern part (!!) of the Spanish Netherlands from Spain.

I agree with all your other points, but would like to point out that the union of the northern part of the Spanish Netherlands was in effect sealed at the "Union of Utrecht" in 1579. The Treaties of Westphalia which ended the 80- and 30-Years' Wars saw the other European countries formally recognize Dutch independence, but for all intents and purposes, it had already functioned like one for 70 years . Also, there was a Treaty of Utrecht too, but that one wasn't signed until 1713 to end the War of the Spanish Succession. [/end totally off-topic insufferable know-it-allism]

 

[wildWolverine]

I knew I was going to take some heat for that comment, but I stand by it -- while the French can't be considered German today, certainly the Franks could be in the year 800.

The normans were descendants of vikings who settled in northern france (normandie) and spoke french.

And not very distant descendants. Rollo allied himself w/ the Carolingians around 930, didn't he?

 

[Iztvan]

Originally posted by wildWolverine
I knew I was going to take some heat for that comment, but I stand by it -- while the French can't be considered German today, certainly the Franks could be in the year 800.

I wasn't arguing that much. It's just that "German" can mean more than one thing in english, while there are more than one word in german and swedish.
Just like "American". Is a person from Brazil american? Yes, if you mean "from the american continent", no if you mean a person from the United States of America.

Originally posted by wildWolverine
And not very distant descendants. Rollo allied himself w/ the Carolingians around 930, didn't he?

Gånge-Hrolf you mean?
That would translate as "Walking-Rolf" because he was so big that, acording to legend, he couldn't ride a horse! His legs would reach the ground. Viking horses were small though.
And Rollo's great-grandson fell in love with a french tanners daughter (tanner was a low-status occupation), took her as a mistress. She gave birth to a child named Guillaume (Willhelm in German, William in Enlish) who got the nicknames William Tanner and William the Bastard by his enemies. We know him by a different name of course...

Phew, going seriously off topic...

 

[wildWolverine]

Having written several term papers on the later Normans (i.e., third generation and onward), I am slightly acquainted w/ Norman history.

And this thread has been off topic since it was opened...

<starts slow chant>
Frontiersman! Frontiersman! Frontiersman! Frontiersman!

 

[Iztvan]

Cool! The Normans were quite... special. I wouldn't have liked being their neighbours!

frontiersman? A move 2 musketman for the us with a fur cap and a big knife? With forest as favoured terrain?

 

[wildWolverine]

Exactly -- forest = favored by increased line of sight distance -- say the equivalent to the bonus of standing on a mountain for a normal unit. Sort of something like a later age Jaguar Warrior, except w/ slightly higher attack/defense values (due to existing in the later age).

edit: since the Americans always seem to start next to the Iroquis, perhaps a bonus attack value against them (in terms of historical accuracy)?

 

[Iztvan]

I was thinking "favoured terrain" as it works today - like the Keshik counting mountains as move cost 1, the frontiersman would be able to move through woods as fast as over plains/grassland.

 

[wildWolverine]

A viable, probably more likely alternative. Alas, I fear the point is moot. We are stuck with the F-15...

 

[Iztvan]

We'll see... It looks like a lot more is going to happen with Conquests than with PtW. It will be intresting.

 

[SoCalian]

No no no no no. An army ranger to replace the paratrooper would be more acurate. It comes at a beter time concerning the "golden age and would be more fun. Thats how I feel as an American anyway.

 

[wildWolverine]

I wouldn't like a Ranger because I don't use paratroopers all that much anyhow... perhaps the existence of such a unit would change that. However, why Rangers? Why not SEALs? They could be paratroopers AND have marine warfare abilities.

 

[SoCalian]

If marines and paratroopers were made more powerful, or if they had some sort of upgrade line I would use them. Hmmm... SEALs would work. I only thought they could have marine abilities, I didn't know they could paratroop.

 

[G-Force Junkie]

If I remember correctly, the SEALs do a thing called the High Altitude Low Opening (aka HALO) jump where they jump out of a plane at high altitudes and fall to with a couple hundred feet of the water where they would open the chute to slow them down and then they cut off the chute and go scuba. It would make a great American UU to replace a Special Forces unit they could add to the game. They could also put the SAS into the game for England's replacement for the Spec. Forces unit.

 

[Pembroke]

In my mod I changed the American UU to the U.S. Cavalry, an improved cavalry unit. If I think about what could be as American as you can get then the first association I make are the blue coats riding out of their prairie frontier fort.

I admit that I *might* have seen too many John Wayne movies but still...

At least I have always thought that the Golden Age of a civilization is not the time when it's at the peak of its power, but when it's young and vigorous and expanding to a true empire. When an empire gets as big as it's going to be then, by definition, its power is at max. But does that then start a Golden Age? I mean when an empire stops expanding (or can't anymore) then it tends to turn inwards and starts to rot from inside while still presenting a powerful outer front. After that it's all downhill from there on...

For example the Roman Empire was at its largest in the 3rd century AD. Rome was the undeniable master of the Mediterranean. But it was also already stagnating as everything was geared towards maintaining that position. The expansion had reached its limits. OTOH three centuries earlier, in the Late Republic, the Romans were the new rising star. Their legions conquered new territories, Roman trade and business expanded, Latin culture and arts flourished. IMO that was the Roman Golden Age: the time when Rome _built_ an empire.

I think the game even reflects this: the Golden Age gives you a production bonus giving you the tools to expand rapidly and build a powerful civilization.

Similarly I think that the American Golden Age was the 19th century when a young, vigorous and expanding nation rapidly conquered a whole CONTINENT rising from an insignificant provincial nation to a major world power by the time of WW1. If that's not a Golden Age then what is?

Besides this is even historically accurate: Golden Ages are _always_ in the past while the modern times suck.

 

[wildWolverine]

While SEALs do indeed practice HALO jumps (hence the name of the game...) that technique is not specific to them. The SEAL teams have an incredibly wide variety of insertion methods -- perhaps something that could be reflected by giving them an extra attack point if they are attacking from a ship???

 

[Xen]

FEE FIGH FOE FUM, I HEAR THE RANT OF ANTI-BYZANTINE SCUM!

Xen is back, and with a vengence!

Originally posted by superisis


NOOOO... (well, maybe) the Byzantine empire should not be included on the basis of being an indipendant civ... Its not, ask any byzantine citizen. They never called themselves byzantine, they were romans, constantinople was the "nuova roma" (how you say that in greek?).

You address one of the issues that brings the Byzantines into an indipendent light right there: THEY USED A DIFFERENT LANGUAGE!

Originally posted by superisis

I believe it was the roman emperor archadius

There was no Emperor (of a united Empire at least) named Archadius, there was however, an eastern Roman emperor by that name (that being before the fall of the western empire, the best defining point of when the eastern Roman empire became a Roman offshoot, as opposed to continuation)

Originally posted by superisis


who sepparated rome into two halves, an easter and a western and made himself emperor of the eastern (better) half, but also he was the ruler of the western half. The capital of the eastern roman empire was Constantinople (founded by Constantine, on the area of the old greek city of Byzantium

The split of the Roman empire into two distinct entities is rather complex, but it all starts with Diocletians reform of the empire into a "tetrarchy" making the empire into a common wealth, more or less

now then after Diocletian retired, his system for imperial succession, utterlly, and compleatly failed, where upon Rome found itself in (another) civil war, the contenders being Constantine, and Maxentius, and as we all know, for better, or for worse, Constantine won (upon which he promptlly screwed the Roman army by abolishing the preatorian guard, and drasticcly reforming the army out of the legions into a completlly differnt set up, but thats for a differnt rant) any way, after constane bit the dust of the position of emperor, it passed to be split between his sons, and while this itself is not considerd the "offcial" split of east and west into semi-indipendent portions (if you want to get technical, it happend under Diocletian), but it did set the standard for when after emperor Theodosius I the Roman empire was officially, and for ever(barring a sudden modern resurgence of the Roman empire in full of coarse) into eastern, and western empires, indipendent of each other in full

It should also be noted, the Constantinoplw WAS NOT FOUNDED, it was only Byzantium, a bustiling, and thriving trade center, re-named to better fit the emperors ego

Originally posted by superisis


the capital of the western roman empire was Ravenna. The western roman empire fell into pieces in the centuries following Constantines death (late 300's-400's) though the emperor Justantine (or was it Justantinius?) tried to reconquer parts of it (succeeded in North Africa, against the vandals, and Italy, against the ostro goths). N.B. Justantine is also famous for the construction of Hagia Sofia, built by Sergios and Bacchos (I think), the famous church of Constantinople the inspired the great mosques of Sinan and also the early Russian rulers (convincing them to make their state religion orthodox-christianity instead of roman Catholisism/islam/judaism) and for the compilation of the first great (united) law codex... which is why names withing the law are based of Justinians name (such as justice, just etc).

Well first off, lets get this straght Justinian was named after the Roman Goddess of Justice, Justitia, whos statue should be familiar to all, as she is the "blind justice", so common a symbol, atleast in U.S courts of law

second off, Ravenna only became capital of the western empire after the sack of Rome by the barbario-Roman general Geseric, who sacking of Rome marks the now reformed and accepted date for the fall of the Roman empire (and the surgence of Byzantium) in the 450s' CE (AD), as opposed the former date of 476 CE, when Odoacer, Chiefe of the Heruli sacked Ravenna, and deposed the last western Roman emperor Romulus Agustulus

 

[Louis XXIV]

Originally posted by cgannon64
Just because Europe is crowded is no reason to leave the Dutch out.

That's what I feel about Assyria, Israel, and Byzantine

Since both the Dutch and the Portugese likely will be in the game, that means only one (probably Byzantine, but I really want Assyria) possibly 2 (they said expect 7, but there might be 8 )

I'm afraid that only one, or, worse, none of these civs will be in the game. Since I'm responding to a quote on page 3, I won't continue the discussion on this page (about Byzantine), but I will take a guess for the unique units.

Sumer: Endiku Warrior - A screenshot shows it as 2.2.1, but I think that's a scenario. I have no idea its stats.

Inca: Chasqui Scout - 1.1.1 (All squares as Roads) - Described as fast scout, there was a screenshot that had these stats. There was another that listed it as 2.1.1, but I think that was a scenario

Maya: Javelineer - 3.1.1 replaces archer

Hittites: 3-Man Chariot - 2.2.2, a screenshot showed that it was 22 turns until it was completed. This means 30 cost and 2 stat increases.

Dutch: That Pikeman I saw in one of the screenshots. 1.4.1 - I think the Dutch were a good civ choice, BTW

Portugal: I know absolutely nothing about Portugal Not suprisingly, in my ignorance, I think they were a poor choice.

EDIT: It appears it is still being discussed, so I might have to cram everything said supporting and arguing against Xen's fight for Byzantine into one very long post that nobody will have time to read.