Discussion in 'Civ3 - General Discussions' started by Illusion13, Jan 10, 2008.
Like, the Chinese Rider... and the Korean... Missile launcher... thingie...
Korean Missile Launcher Thingy (aka Hwacha)
Not sure specifically about the Rider, someone into Chinese history probably would know.
I did find an article at Wiki about Chinese Knights Errant which could be construed as the basis for the Rider (which is totally useless in Vanilla)
Eh? There's no difference between Vanilla, PtW and C3C riders surely? However you say it, however you see it, it's a punchy unit.
The civilopedia says something about armored Mongol horsemen called Riders conquering China. Not much of a Unique Unit of China. Not a word about h'wacha(macallits) in the Korea article. A google search directs you to...these forums. I think the historical basis of some UU's is a bit.... sketchy, at best.
It would seem reasonable that the *inventor* of gunpowder would get a gunpowder UU... just at a quick think
When you google hwacha, without the apostrophy, the Korean cannon comes up, first hit a wiki article.
It seems Firaxis picked the most obscure spelling.
Not unusual. Colosseum is Firaxis' spelling, Word suggests Coliseum as the proper spelling. I've seen other mis-spellings, usually on city names.
A quick look in my dictionary reveals that Coliseum is the American spelling, while Colosseum is British.
The root is colosseus which is Latin for very very big, which in turn comes from the Greek kholossiaios.
I presume that the developers wanted the true Latinate form(or maybe there was a Brit high up in the team ).
Referring to the Chinese? If so it doesn't appear that reasonable to me. I mean what are you gonna give them, fireworks?
If you read the article on the Korean unit you will see that they were developing theirs from the one already used by the Chinese.
it is not as if there is no historical basis for gunpowder weapons.
I'm pretty sure any group of middle-ages era pikemen would make the battlefield run yellow if they saw fireworks.
Sadly, intimidation tactics don't fit so well into civ.
Of course not. I'm just pointing out that the chinese really didn't use it that much militarily.
I think the historical basis for the UUs is when the civ got their golden age. E.g. China's golden age is in the early middle ages (Tang dynasty) so it has a rider UU when you discover Chivalry which in in the early middle ages.
THat makes sense since it's almost impossible not to get a golden age from your UU.
Not if you play as Egypt. That is the most pathetic UU I have ever seen. (Vanilla) I never build them because they are a waste of resources and they die when a warrior on some other continent glances at them.
It's always dissapointed me that chariots never play a major role in civ III. I don't think I have ever built a regular chariot, but the time I need fast units horsemen are available.
Making chariots 1,1 is a major mistake, considering that they are the ancient world equilvalent of tanks, and were used up until the end of the roman empire.
I think the horseman should be 1/1/2 and the chariot be the next level up, maybe 2/2/2 like the Hittites 3 man chariot. After all, horseman came before chariots in RL.
Chariots are totally useless, I thought they needed roads to get through jungle and stuff. I never build them , I just like glancing at them so they fall apart. I dont know about the horseman thing, technically the stirrup is a pretty late invention and that defines a horseman and makes it more than just a bloke sitting on a horse trying not to fall off.
Separate names with a comma.