Play the World first Screenshots!

Anyone have any idea about the Carthaginian UU?? (If they exist. )

I don't know what they intend to make it, but it should be Numidian cavlalry. This was the most effective arm of Hannibal's army, and its superiority in battle enabled Hannibal to overcome his infantry inferiority (e.g. Cannae).

The other possibility is some kind of fast warship, like the quinquereme which gave the Carthaginians naval superiority in the !st Punic War until the Corvus came about.

Something which would suit Carthage's history would be an ability to hire mercenaries. The citizens of Carthage did not take part in foreign combat after the disasters they encountered against the Sicilian Greeks years before the Punic Wars. This was done by Carthage's huge mercenary army, hired in N.Africa and Spain. Their were no Carthaginian foot-soldiers the army of Hannibal that crossed the Alps (the one that everyone remembers).
 
Originally posted by SRN
So if i hadnt written, that i was to lacy to read the topic you have been more than happy to answer my question?

This thread is 10 pages long. Do you really think i would read 10 pages, about people discussing wether or not the viking special unit being an amphibious unit would imbalance the game?

And instead of just telling me how big a whiner i am, you could spend you time giving me the answers to my very good questions.

By the way... Din mor er den største luder jeg nogensinde har få min pik suttet af. Men hun godt nok en del øvelse i at sutte pik. Især på dig, din demobile spasse af en stor fed horeunge at være. Fede spasser mongol, tabte din luder mor dig tit som barn fede røvhul!!!
Moderator Action: Little man...you be banned.
Minimum 3 days but I have suggested to Thunderfall that it be lengthened to one week because of the severity of your actions. We will not have you cursing at other posters, especially in a different language. We have other users on here that are not *******s like you that will translate for us and I verified the translation thru software. Trolls are not welcome!
troll.jpg


Sidenote:
Don't be lazy, read the whole thread. That is the standard here at CFC, I don't care how it is in WC world, so get over it and stop wasting our time.

Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

Update: Thunderfall has agreed to the 1 week ban. See you then SRN.
 
Originally posted by Zerzes
Uhm, ok... What have we learned about Korean history in school? (Not counting schools in Korea or neighbouring countries). Anyone? I'm sure they have a great history, as most countries have, but that history must be well known around the world to qualify in the game.
Tell me, how much do you really learn about the history and culture of the Aztec empire in school? What about the Iriquois? Or the Zulu? Can you give a quick summary of the high and low points of their history as well as 5 culturally distinct traits that are unique to that culture? What about the Persian empire, Babylon, or China? How much did you REALLY learn about them in school other then that they existed?

I must say though, that inventing an early phonetic alphabet in a part of the world where picture signs still dominate, is quite interesting. What happened to that alphabet? Is the Korean alphabet phonetic?
They're still using it. From what I understand, North Korea uses the Hanguk <Sp?> alphabet exclusively while S. Korea tends to muck it up by adding a bunch of Chinese characters. Both countries still have some of the highest literacy rates in the world. (That being the point. The King specifically had it designed to be easy for even peasants to learn to read/write it)

Has Korea ever had a golden age with great influence and/or large empire? (Not counting the spread of MSX computers or KIA/Hyundai cars ;)).
Define large. Say, the entire Peninsula large? It depends on the time period. If you count it's three kingdom days and consider all three kingdoms as 'Korean', then it was decent sized.

Quite likely. Maybe industrious instead of religious, since there are so many religious civs already.
Korea almost has to be religious. During their heyday, they based a good deal of their society on Confucism, including a caste system. India anyone?

I'd probably give the Spanish 'Religious' and 'Commercial' myself.
 
Don't you think that Firaxis could put a former civilization in the game such as Atlantis, or Lemurians?

Archaeologists have nearly proved there was an ancient sea going civ that crossed the Atlantic when sea levels were low like ten thousand years ago, about when the sphinx was built :egypt:

Also the base sizes of the pyramids of Egypt and the Mayans were the exact same size down to the centimeter and both faced the constilation O'Ryan.
 
Here's my take on the civ traits
Spain- Religious, Militaristic (just like their friends the Aztecs :D)
Vikings- Commerical, militaristic
Carthage- Commerical, expansionist
Mongols- Militaristic, Expansionist
Celts- expansionist, religious?
Korea- Scientific, Industrious/Religous
Inca (you know they are gonna be in there)- Religious, industrious (lots of roads and cool temples)
 
PaleHorse76 said:
Moderator Action: Little man...you be banned.
Minimum 3 days but I have suggested to Thunderfall that it be lengthened to one week because of the severity of your actions. We will not have you cursing at other posters, especially in a different language. We have other users on here that are not *******s like you that will translate for us and I verified the translation thru software. Trolls are not welcome!
troll.jpg


Sidenote:
Don't be lazy, read the whole thread. That is the standard here at CFC, I don't care how it is in WC world, so get over it and stop wasting our time.

Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

Update: Thunderfall has agreed to the 1 week ban. See you then SRN.

LOL

I posted answers to SRN's questions a long time ago. Does that mean I'm banned too?:lol:j/k

Monkspider, I think the Vikings will have to be Expansionist and Commercial.
 
Yeah a friend of mine reckons the Numidian Light Cavalry will be the Carthaginian UU. He also mentinoned a "Sacred Band" that was originally the "Theban Sacred Band" but was adopted by the Carthaginians.

Regarding Spain, I think Religious and Expansionistic. You can't look at the West coast of the US and whopping great sections of South America and tell me they're not expansionistic!

By the way, I'm struggling to find time (work!) but I'm intending to reply to both Isak and ChrTh.

So has everyone seen the latest from IGN? If not - you'd have missed the other Civs announced: the Ottomans, Gauls and the Arabs. So does that mean we know them all now?

Spain, Celts, Gauls, Vikings, Arabs, Ottomans, Koreans, Carthaginians - is that right? Were the Celts actually confirmed other than Leader name? because it could be that Leader name actually was for the Gauls. Anyone?

Edit: Here's the URL for the IGN article: http://pc.ign.com/articles/360/360642p1.html
 
Greetings Everyone,

Can the special unit for the Ottomans be the "Cannon"? It was those huge cannons which helped them to conquer Constantinapole and destroy Byzantium? Also any idea for Gaul UU?

Live Long and Prosper.
 
Originally posted by Sir Durfey
Greetings Everyone,

Can the special unit for the Ottomans be the "Cannon"? It was those huge cannons which helped them to conquer Constantinapole and destroy Byzantium? Also any idea for Gaul UU?

Live Long and Prosper.

A bombardment UU sounds interesting. I would like to see a catapult UU :)
 
Gauls???! GAULS???! That's rather silly! The Gauls are just the Frogs. It must be a typo. They must mean the Celts. I can't imagine having them simply doing the Gauls, that's just stupid. I don't believe they could make such an elimentary mistake...or could they? :D
 
It is a bit strange that there's the French as well as the Gauls. I already rename the French to the Gauls when I play! Apart from a bit of latin blood, what's the difference? Okay, so I really don't know brilliantly much about it to say. But I know there are people here that do, and it would be cool if they could explain.

Incidentally, when I play with England I tend to rename it to "Britannia" and with the Civ as "British Celts" under Queen Boadicea. Maybe they'll someday do something similar - don't laugh - if they're doing the Gauls _and_ the French this is possible too!

Thank Dog it's Friday.
 
On Gauls/Celts:

"The earliest Celts who were major players in the classical world were the Gauls, who controlled an area extending from France to Switzerland. It was the Gauls who sacked Rome and later invaded Greece; it was also the Gauls that migrated to Asia Minor to found their own, independent culture there, that of the Galatians. Through invasion and migration, they spread into Spain and later crossed the Alps into Italy and permanently settled the area south of the Alps which the Romans then named, Cisalpine Gaul.

The Gauls were a tribal and agricultural society. They were ruled by kings, but individual kings reigned only over small areas. Occasionally a single powerful king could gain the allegiance of several kings as a kind of "over-king," but on the whole the Gauls throughout Europe were largely an ethnic continuity rather than a single nation.

Ethnic identity among the early Gauls was very fluid. Ethnic identity was first and foremost based on small kinship groups, or clans—this fundamental ethnic identity often got collapsed into a larger identity, that of tribes. The main political structures, that of kingship, organized themselves around this tribal ethnic identity. For the most part, the Gauls did not seem to have a larger ethnic identity that united the Gaulish world into a single cultural group—the "Gauls" as an ethnic group was largely invented by the Romans and the Greeks and applied to all the diverse tribes spread across the face of northern Europe. The Gauls did have a sense of territorial ethnicity; the Romans and Greeks tell us that there were sixteen separate territorial nations of Gauls. These territorial groups were divided into a series of pagi, which were military units composed of men who had voluntarily united as fellow soldiers.

The Gauls, however, were not the original Europeans. Beginning in an area around Switzerland, the Celts spread westward and eastward displacing native Europeans in the process. These migrations begin around 500 BC. The Gaulish invasion of Italy in 400 was part of this larger emigration. The Romans, however, pushed them back by the third century BC; native Europeans in the north, however, were not so lucky.

Two Celtic tribes, the Cimbri and the Teutones ("Teuton," an ethnic for Germans, is derived from the Celtic root for "people"), emigrated east and settled in territory in Germany. The center of Celtic expansion, however, was Gaul, which lay north of the Alps in the region now within the borders of France and Belgium and part of Spain.

The earliest account of the Gauls comes from Julius Caesar. In his history of his military expedition first into Gaul and then as far north as Britain, Caesar dexcribed the tribal and regional divisions among the Gauls, of which some seem to have been original European populations and not Celtic at all. "

So it seems that Celts/Gauls is interchangable when considering Mainland Europe.

But equating Gauls=French is incorrect, just as equating Huns=Germans.
 
Are we 100% sure we aren't talking the Gallatians, rather than the Gauls. Quite different. Hmm, must go check sources. :)


Edit: note I wrote that before the post immediately above this, which explains more about the difference. But I still wonder, maybe it's the Gallatians they're adding and not the Gauls. If it was the Gauls, why not add the Franks as well for completeness? ;)

But then again, we've got America - an amalgam nation, so why not admit that France and England are really just amalgam nation Civs.

Seems we have Civs that are either tribes, nations, civilizations in the strict sense, and dynasties - or mixtures of each. Not really a bad thing is it? Makes it more diverse :)
 
The point of using "Gauls" is that incorporates Celts, Galatians, et al. It's basically the "Barbarian European Civ", whereas the Mongols are the "Barbarian Asian Civ" and the Vikings/Norse are the "Barbarian Northern European Civ"... ('Barbarian' in the Greek sense)

Do you get the idea that if they create a new Ability, it's going to be something that goes along with the Barbarian motif?

EDIT: BTW, Brennus is a Gaulish name, so it won't be Celts and Gauls, just Gauls. So there's still one slot open:

Korean
Mongolian
Spanish
Norse/Viking
Gauls
Ottomans
Arabs

We're still short a Western Hemisphere Civ...
 
The Gauls are a subsection of the Celts. Originally, there was no difference in the meaning of both words other than the fact that Celt was the Greek term and Gaul was the Roman term.
 
Back
Top Bottom