The Huns in C3C?

[Lord_Sidious]

If the Huns were a c3c civ?
To me the would be: Militarist,Expansionist.
Leader: Warlord Attila
Cities: I don't know of any city of the Huns. The Huns never had cities(maybe the huns had a special options to instead building cities, the could build camps)
UU:Tarkan with Horseback riding
Military Leaders:
Bleda
Uldin
Scientific:
The Huns never had scientists or wise man the were warriors they were not interessed in that
The color:
White, yellow, grey or gold.
I have a picture of Attila:

 

[Louis XXIV]

This belongs in Creation and Customization

 

[SuperBeaverInc.]

You might run into a little bit of a problem if you couldn't find names for SGls.

 

[Shabbaman]

Well, one could break a lance for the argument that the huns are in fact mongols...

 

[Ekmek]

I resized the AoK tarkan if anyone wants to add it as a unit. See my sig.

 

[The Last Conformist]

On account of not being a city-based civilization, I think the Huns are a poor candidate for inclusion, certainly much worse than the Hettites.

 

[Zenon_pt]

Question: City list??? Capital?

 

[majk-iii]

instead of hiitites? -Why?! The hittites are as important as the egyptians and the romans.
And yes the hus are pretty much the same as the mongols. But at another time.
Also related to the huns are the turks and to some extent even the germans and the russians, because of their common middle ages-history.
All of theese civs are allready in c3c.
I reccon thats enough.
The Huns are no doubt an important piece of certain midevil scenarios but not really a civ that should be put in the epic game.

 

[majk-iii]

oh, exuse my spelling, just woke up.

 

[Parmenion]

I thought that the main qualification for the label 'Civilisation' was the historical founding of cities.
The Huns just rampaged and pillage wherever they went and lived in camps. Thus they would be barbarians but not actual civs.

The Hittites are included because of their contribution to the early civilisations of Mesopotamia. They had enough territory to be labelled as an empire and even had many cities under their sway. They were the first peoples to use iron and even threatened mighty Egypt.
Therefore, I would say they qualify but the Huns don't.

 

[majk-iii]

Just my point... wonder, by the way, when they'll dare put the hebrews in as a civ. ...not israel.
Kinda been waitin' for that u know, made more then enough of a mark to at least be reccognised.
I mean, they did put portugal in the game!

Allthough it might be hard to find a good UU.
Seems like there has to be a major military contribution made to be put in the game... Sadly enough.
Maybe davidleauge-slingers or something... no, that wasn't funny.

 

[nalves]

Originally posted by majk-iii
I mean, they did put portugal in the game!

You think that Portugal should't be in the game

Originally posted by majk-iii

just woke up.

That explains it

 

[Lord_Sidious]

yOU'RE RIGHT

 

[Lord_Sidious]

yOU'RE RIGHT

 

[Lord_Sidious]

Sorry, double post

 

[Pook]

I agree with the comments about the Huns not being a city-based civilization. I would like to see the Huns in the game, but not as a human player civ. I would like to see them as a barbarian uprising group that could take cities, similar to the way barbarians took cities in Civ II.

I always play with Raging Hordes of barbarians, so I'm accustomed to seeing the 24 horsemen Stack Of Doom descending on my town with two spearmen in it. If that town is really valuable to me, I'll depend it to the hilt. However, if the town is small and relatively unimportant, the way the rules are now, I often find it cheaper to sell the town's improvements, evacuate (but not abandon) the town, and use up my empire's gold reserves. The barbarians come in, take the town down to size 1, take 1-2 gold apiece, and vanish!

I don't see this scenario as realistic. I believe barbarians (like the Huns) should be able to take cities and use them as a base for future conquest. This idea is already in the queue of ideas for Civ IV.

 

[Pook]

We could bring in the Goths, Vandals, and other large barbarian groups as well.

 

[The Last Conformist]

You do realize that the Huns, Goths and Vandals (and 72 other peoples) are already in the game as names of Barbarian tribes? You are in effect only asking for Barbarians be given the ability to capture cities (which I would agree with).

Do you have C3C? In my experience, those 24 Horsemen stacks now rarely dare attack cities defended by a single Spearman, instead usually ending up fortified on a mountain till kingdom come.

 

[Pook]

Originally posted by The Last Conformist
You do realize that the Huns, Goths and Vandals (and 72 other peoples) are already in the game as names of Barbarian tribes? You are in effect only asking for Barbarians be given the ability to capture cities (which I would agree with).

Do you have C3C? In my experience, those 24 Horsemen stacks now rarely dare attack cities defended by a single Spearman, instead usually ending up fortified on a mountain till kingdom come.

Yes, I think we're in basic agreement here. I realize that these tribes are already in the game as barbarians. Perhaps what I'm looking for is a distinction between 'minor' barbarians and the 'curtains for our civilization as we know it if they win' barbarians, meaning the ones that could have had a huge impact on history. The Goths, Vandals and Huns come to mind as they all significantly affected the Roman world.

I am playing C3C 1.15. I have had the 24 horsemen stack travel back and forth between two mountain squares for about 15 turns. Sooner or later, they've always come to attack me.

 

[StabbingNirvana]

i hate it that barbarians dont attack anymore. its insulting. they just wait at my borders telling me im worthless and that my spearmen arent worth spilling blood. they make me cry