Skanderbeg of the Albanian civilization

[vormuir]

Just noodling with this...

Skanderbeg: Protective, Charismatic. Pretty much a no-brainer given the history!

Starting techs: Hunting, Mining. Mountain tribes, right?

UB: Kolla (replaces Wall): as Wall, but +2 culture. Yes, UUs aren't usually a cheap building. But they can be. And this synergizes with Protective without being (IMO) unbalanced. After all, it's the same benefit as the Inca Terrace, and Walls usually come after Granaries.

UU: Bashibazouk (replaces Musketman): Well, I don't know what to do here.

The Albanian UU pretty much has to be a Musketman -- their golden age of military victories came in the 15th century and didn't last long. But all the good and obvious Musketman upgrades have been done already: Janissaries, Oromos, Musketeers. Giving them Guerrilla I would be historically appropriate but kinda weak, and would also be too like the Celtic UU.

Maybe a Musketeer with a 50% bonus against other Gunpowder units? That seems like a lot, but (1) it still doesn't make the UU as strong as a Rifleman, (2) it's useless against mounted units and siege, and (3) it doesn't carry over on promotion, so its period of usefulness is pretty short.

Thoughts?


Waldo

 

[Genv [FP]]

Um, What did Albania do that is significant do deserve a place in Civ?

 

[kazapp]

I don't think the subject of this discussion is "should we have an Albania civ" but "what should its UU and UB be".

Then again, this isn't the proper forum for either discussion.

 

[DaveMcW]

Tip: Use the "report post" button to complain about the wrong forum, that way you don't look silly when it's moved to the correct forum.

 

[vormuir]

Um, What did Albania do that is significant do deserve a place in Civ?

As opposed to Ethiopia or the Khmer?

Anyway, I was playing with putting together a new civ that's (1) balanced (2) interesting and (3) historically accurate, at least by the broad standards of the game.

It's trickier than it looks.


Waldo

 

[vormuir]

Tip: Use the "report post" button to complain about the wrong forum, that way you don't look silly when it's moved to the correct forum.

I guess I wasn't clear. I was interested in customization, yes, but in the strategy behind it -- that is, how to create a new Civ that's balanced, but that generates interesting new strategies.

For instance, the combo I've proposed would encourage a particular sort of "rope-a-dope" tactic -- grab an enemy city, push in Protective units, then whip a cheap UB as soon as the city comes out of unrest. Would that be viable enough to build a game around, or would it be a sideshow?

IOW, I wasn't looking for "how do I mod this", but "what would be a good strategy with this mix of traits, UB etc.," "what UU would make for interesting tactics,' and like that.

Waldo

 

[zombiestomp]

walls should only be +1 culture. otherwise, they will be +4 after 1000 years, and that seems a little high. plus, they are super cheap owing to a protective leader.

as for the Bashibazouk, i just checked the wikipedia entry on them. it is brief, but it doesn't seem accurate or balanced to make them +50% against gunpowder. it would make them, effectively, 13.5 power units against riflemen, and this doesn't make any sense that a rifle is barely as powerful/accurate as a blunderbust. and, according to wikipedia, they were mostly irregulars, so i would assume they don't have much training with their weapons.

i suggest a free guerrilla promotion AND making them cheaper units to build. maybe 60 shields, opposed to 80. a 25% discount. maybe more, but i wouldn't go lower than 50. so they'd be cheap, and with barracks they'd have mountain-walk. sort of like keshiks, but not really.

 

[Ajidica]

I though Bashi-Bakouks were Ottoman irregulars or provincial militias.

 

[TheLastOne36]

As opposed to Ethiopia or the Khmer?

Anyway, I was playing with putting together a new civ that's (1) balanced (2) interesting and (3) historically accurate, at least by the broad standards of the game.

It's trickier than it looks.


Waldo

Ethiopia and the Khmer have a very big and important history. Maybe you think of "Poor ethiopia, people are starving" and "tiny khmer ruled by terrorists..." and wonder why they are in civ 4, but read about Ethiopian history, and the khmer Empire.

 

[Shqype]

Um, What did Albania do that is significant do deserve a place in Civ?

It did many things. Check on Wikipedia, or download my Albania civ that I created and read the civilopedia entry I put together.

I understand you are ignorant, but Gjergj Kastrioti did wonders to protect Catholic Western Europe (and especially the Vatican) against the Ottomans, like Mehmet the Conqueror of Constantinople.

vormuir, you can view my thread for the Albanian civ here: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=160593

The UU is the Kalorse, and the UB is the Kuvend.

 

[Ajidica]

I thought that Gjergj Kastrioti was excomunicated for a while? I also remember reading that Mehmet only decided to attack Constantinople becasue he was annoyed the constant bribing of European nations by the Byzantines. I dont feel that Albania should be a civ just because they did half-well in a small time period. Throughout most of history, that area has been subjugated by a forign power. To prove my point:
Byzantines: Powerful from 660AD-1071AD, major player in European politics from 1081-1204, very nearly won Siege of Constantinople, spent a long time holding back the turks and arabs, (lets try just a bit under a millenium)
Holy Roman Empire: Major political/military power in Europe from 800AD-?, ruled huge tracts of land (Have awsome leaderhead art)
Rome: Its Rome.
Persia: Massive power in both its Achaemenid, Sassanid, and Safvid version.

I do not mean in any way to deminish the heritage of Albania, but in the bigger scheme of things, they really didnt do much.

I dont want to turn this into a flame war, but am just fine continuing a reasonable discussion.

 

[Shqype]

I thought that Gjergj Kastrioti was excomunicated for a while? I also remember reading that Mehmet only decided to attack Constantinople becasue he was annoyed the constant bribing of European nations by the Byzantines. I dont feel that Albania should be a civ just because they did half-well in a small time period. Throughout most of history, that area has been subjugated by a forign power. To prove my point:
Byzantines: Powerful from 660AD-1071AD, major player in European politics from 1081-1204, very nearly won Siege of Constantinople, spent a long time holding back the turks and arabs, (lets try just a bit under a millenium)
Holy Roman Empire: Major political/military power in Europe from 800AD-?, ruled huge tracts of land (Have awsome leaderhead art)
Rome: Its Rome.
Persia: Massive power in both its Achaemenid, Sassanid, and Safvid version.

I do not mean in any way to deminish the heritage of Albania, but in the bigger scheme of things, they really didnt do much.

I dont want to turn this into a flame war, but am just fine continuing a reasonable discussion.

Gjergj Kastrioti was never excommunicated. He was closely involved with the politics of 4 Catholic Popes, and was given the title of "Athleta Christi," Defender of Christianity, as well as being made Captain General of the Holy See. Pope Pius II organized a final crusade to rid Europe of the Turks based on Gjergj Kastrioti's rebellion, but it unfortunately ended prematurely when the Pope died on his journey to commence the final preparations.

Kastrioti defeated the most powerful army in the world for a quarter of a century, and bought Europe enough time to prepare for the oncoming Ottoman might. I think it's foolish to assume Mehmet the Conqueror took Constantinople because its leaders bribed European powers; the Ottomans did the same, as did the Venetians. Mehmet took it because he wanted it. He introduced a brand new mentality to warfare that didn't exist in Europe: the notion that he would use absolute force to impose his will on his enemies, and would stop at nothing until he got what he wanted. He was continually defeated by Gjergj Kastrioti, and 12 years after Kastrioti's death, when Albania was finally subdued, Mehmet the Conqueror died shortly after. His successor, Bayezid, was not into warfare but instead the arts, and did not concern himself with expansion of the empire into Europe.

Thus, Gjergj Kastrioti prevented the Ottomans from conquering Rome, which was a desire of Mehmet the Conqueror's. Given his persistence, sheer power, and track record (of capturing the seemingly impregnable Constantinople), it's very likely he would have succeeded were it not for Gjergj Kastrioti's defense of Albania, Europe, and Christianity.

I strongly suggest you download my mod and read the civilopedia entry for it. While the golden age of Albania no doubt occurred during the middle ages, before it plunged into darkness under Ottoman domination, there is still an ancient history in Albania and its people that predates the European civilizations that you would argue "deserve" a place in civ. The Illyrians were bad ass, and nearly succeeded in completely destroying the kingdom of Macedon under Bardhylli. Neither the Albanians, nor their Illyrian ancestors, were conquerors that sought to subjugate foreign peoples and grow the lands of their empires, but that doesn't mean they aren't significant. They played their part in history, and even made great contributions to those conquerors that established empires on their territory. Albania definitely deserves to be in Civ.

By the way, since you mention the Byzantines: Voltaire wrote that the Byzantine Empire would have survived had it possessed a leader of Gjergj Kastrioti's quality.

 

[Ajidica]

Many of the later Europeans in the Reniassance heartily disliked the Byzantines. They considered them alot like Gibbon did, a base and effimate empire completly destroying the greatness of its heritage.
Albanian terrain is much different from the terrain in Asia Minor and around Constantinople it is relativle flat with some hills. By contrast Albania has lots of steep valeys, anyone could have defended it easily. Why was it that it took Basil II so long to conquer Bulgaria. As good as the Bulgarian generals were, if they didnt have the advantage of terrain, Byzantium would have defeated them early on.

I feel that the Pope was mainly allying himself with the Balkans becasue 'better fight the Ottomans there then here' mentality.
I also dont feel that he saved Rome from being conquered. If he made an actual threat to the city all of europe probably would have declared war on the ottomans and second, the ottoman supply lines were so far extended, they didnt have the resources for an extended siege.

Mehmet wasnt nescisarily a good general. He only managed to take COnstantinople becasue the Genoese at Galata decided to defenct to the Ottomans. If they didnt do that the Ottomans never would have breached the Golden Horn.

Regardless, this is all sort of moot as there is already an Albanian civ out there somewhere. I was just commenting on it because the initial poster thought they should have been in a x-pack.