"Spanish" wasn't really a national identity at that time. Tariq bin Ziyad was conquering Visigoths, who had settled in Spain and set up a weak kingdom.
Originally Posted by SamBC
Spanish wasn't much of a national identity until around the end of reconquista. Even during the reconquista, Spanish was a secondary identity more important to other Europeans than it was to the people of the peninsula.
Originally Posted by SlickSlicer
also it seems that AI without theyr own religion, u get a bonus in reliationship for expanding yours to them
Okay, not only has the AI for civilizations been improved both diplomatically and militarily but so has the AI for barbarians in the early game(and that is without even using the ranging barbarians option!). I have been playing many games of G&K and in almost everyone, the barbarians will setup my scouts and even my warriors up for ambush, emerging out of forests and jungles in groups of two or three, they approach from opposite sides so they can block my units movement with zone of control and attack them with the flanking bonus. Furthermore, one more than one occasion I had my capital city surrounded by as many as five to six brutes, with some of them pillaging my tile improvements while the others actually attacked my city! I have never seen barbarians act so boldly and perform such well coordinated attacks, and while somewhat bothersome, the greater threat posed by barbarians now has made the early game that much more exciting.
On a side note, about Missionaries, if you happen to rescue a Missionary unit from a barbarian encampment be advised that that Missionary unit which you now control will still spread the religion of the civilization that made it!
I had a Great General that didn't have an option to make a citadel. It kinda screwed my plans, as I had to retreat and think of a new strategy. Oddly enough, the next one did have the option to make a citadel, but the old one, which I still have, doesn't.
Sounds like a bug. Jump in the sticky and post a save-game.
I think it'd be good to be able to upgrade the horse units once more, maybe to "Great War Cavalry"? It's just the horse units get so obsolete the further into the future you get - which makes sense, but in actual history they did use horses quite a bit in the First World War, and certain civilizations used them a fair amount in the Second World War as well.
world war 1 was like the swansong for cavalry, if anything. They were rendered completely useless very quickly. I'm fine with the way it stops at cavalry personally.
I don't think they should go much further with them anyway, but I think they could do one more upgrade, which would be helpful for any civ with horse UUs. The fact that they did use war horses in the World Wars makes it more appropriate for them to do this, but at the same time it couldn't be too much of an improvement...Just enough to make them useful for a little bit longer before they become obsolete.
Originally Posted by SlickSlicer
They used Horses, Donkeys, Bears, Elephants, Cats, Dogs, and Pigeons in both World Wars. The Horses used during World War One were mostly used to tow Artillery around, and the same with World War 2. I don't think they need a upgrade because Cavalry are useful until the historical point were they weren't.
Originally Posted by Hawk
It's not a big issue, but I think we should look at the stats first...
Musketman (Cost: 150, Strength: 16), upgrades to...
Rifleman (Cost: 225, Strength 25)
Cavalry (Cost: 225, Strength: 25) - very obviously matched with the Rifleman, and as you can see, it's a Renaissance era unit, and neither World War was in the Renaissance. Cossack (Cost: 225, Strength: 25).
The Great War Infantry (Costs: 320, Strength: 50) - twice that of the Cavalry, which is supposedly a similar unit, with a similar level of weapon, but on a horse (Just like how the Rifleman matches up with the Cavalry). The upgrade would fit nicely in here, having a cost of 320, and strength at 50...Or probably even lower strength, which would still be an improvement on Strength: 25.
Great War Infantry upgrades to...
The Infantry (Cost: 375, Strength: 70) - Notice this unit upgrade still has no automatic weapon, but would outmatch the "Great War Cavalry", making the upgraded horse pretty much obsolete already, however still able to do some damage.
When you put horses versus Bolt Action Riles, your gonna have a bad time.
During World War 1, only the Allies and Ottomans used Cavalry. Cavalry was only successful on the Middle Eastern Front. Machine Guns and Artillery would cut them down before they reached the trenches. They were really only used for transportation of ammo and artillery pieces.
If you want someone to kill the Great War Infantry, research the Land ship.
I would still like to see something between Renaissance Cavalry and Modern Tank, even if it's just a little better...Otherwise there's a long period where you have to either waste once-good units, or keep them hidden for ages (even if you're being invaded), and then have to give them all particularly pricey upgrades to something that looks completely different. Another horse upgrade would be especially helpful if I've built up a rather large horse army, or have some well promoted horse units.
Originally Posted by PachaMinnie
Isn't the landship between (in the upgrade sense) cavalry and tank? It's a primitive tank, and it replaces the role of cavalry.
random note: The Rifleman and Cavalry are Industrial Era units now.
Originally Posted by Hawk
this is true.
Originally Posted by SamBC
Like MadDjinn mentioned, the eras are different now (assuming you've updated to G&K, which if you haven't you totally should). Furthermore, I think the foot soldier units of every era are pretty much in balance with the horse units, which makes sense cause a soldier with weapons is the same, putting him on horseback only makes him more maneuverable, not necessarily deadlier, here's how they stack up:
Ancient: Chariot Archer (Strength: 6, Ranged Combat: 10) vs Warrior (Strength: 8)
Classical: Horseman (Strength: 12) vs Swordsman (Strength: 14)
Medieval: Knight (Strength: 20) vs Longswordsman (Strength: 21)
Renaissance: Musketman (Strength: 24) vs Lancer (Strength: 25) Note: Lancer is actually part of the anti-mounted line-up
Industrial: Rifleman (Strength: 34) vs Cavalry (Strength: 34)
Modern: Great War Infantry (Strength: 50) vs Landship (Strength: 60) Note: WWI era, early tank replaces cavalry
Historically it makes sense, from the early war chariots and horseback cavalry, to the armored knights of the middle ages, to the advent of gunpowder and the age of the lancers and rifle cavalry. What kept horses competitive on the battlefield after gunpowder was that it took forever to reload early firearms, but by the late 1800's the faster firing weapons like repeater rifles and the Gatling Gun were already making horse cavalry ineffective. It was WWI and the modern Machine Gun that killed the horse cavalry, they just couldn't compete with the new technology of the day, except for a few stubborn old commanders who continued to use cavalry (they taught things like airplanes and tanks were unreliable and untested), most horse units were turned over to support and logistic roles during the war. The tanks that were first invented in WWI became the spiritual successor of the cavalry and many of the old cavalry units were converted over to tanks, so it makes sense to do it that way in Civ.
Since I brought up the unit line-ups, here's the new upgrade track for units in the G&K expansion:
Melee Infantry: Warrior→Swordsman→Longswordsman→Musketman→Rifleman →Great War Infantry→Infantry→Mechanized Infantry
Ranged Infantry: Archer→Composite Bowman→Crossbowman→Gatling Gun→Machine Gun→Mechanized Infantry
Anti-Mounted: Spearman→Pikeman→Lancer→Anti-Tank Gun→Helicopter Gunship
Mounted: Chariot Archer & Horseman→Knight→Cavalry→Landship→Tank→Modern Armor
Siege Units: Catapult & Battering Ram (Hun UU)→Trebuchet→Cannon→Artillery→Rocket Artillery
Melee Navy: Trireme→Caravel→Ironclad→Destroyer note: the special melee ship Privateer upgrades to Ironclad
Ranged Navy: Galleass→Frigate→Battleship
Fighters: Triplane→Fighter→Jet Fighter
Bombers: Great War Bomber→Bomber→Stealth Bomber
Submersible Units: Submarine→Nuclear Submarine
Anti-Air Units: Anti-Aircraft Gun→Mobile SAM
The Scout, Marine, Paratrooper, and Missile Cruiser are not upgradable.
Personally I think they did a great job with the line-up, although I feel like the Scout should upgrade to something like the Explorer from Civ IV, maybe give it 3 movement and embark with defense. I also feel like the Battleship should upgrade to the Missile Cruiser, but I get why it doesn't since the Battleship died out in WWII and Destroyers are still in use today, so the Missile Cruiser is technically a new breed of warship, almost like a Destroyer-Battleship hybrid.
I'm still getting used to G&Ks, as they did change a few things around. The Landship certainly helps here, and I didn't realise they'd moved the Cavalry up to the Industrial era...Still, I think it was worth looking into at any rate.
I agree that they could have it that you can upgrade your Scout to an Explorer - which would be useful, as I often get unit site and healing promotions for them, and they die far too quickly. Maybe a different titled than "Explorer"?
Originally Posted by Hawk
They should allow the Scout upgrades, and maybe make the explorer/cartographer able to move 3 tiles instead of 2.
Why is it every topic around here is hijacked by people wanting the game changed, instead of about how to take advantage of things as they are?
It's much more interesting to know what nation make good AI players, what map settings make good games, what strategy is good, instead of all this topic pollution about changing things that firaxis is never going to do anyway.
If you want something changed, start topics on it, don't hijack thank you.
This whole thread is past its use by.
There is no more 'super sleuthing' to do.
The purpose of this thread was to find out the features of Gods and Kings, nothing more, nothing less. The goal of that is accomplished as everything that was to be found was found. Like the other poster said, the goal has been fulfilled, so the thread topic can either be changed or the thread closed.
Originally Posted by Miravlix
And what is discussion without branching out onto new topics?
Originally Posted by Vlynor
That being said there's not really much for me to do in this thread anymore unless someone wants me to change something in the main document for late adopters' use -- I'm more interested in improving my strat guide, so I don't so much care at this point but probably it is better if you make a new thread.
I think it would be better if this thread was closed and stored in the annals of 2k threads. So no one could desecrate this sacred thread. So it could sleep forever, and not go the path of other threads.
Originally Posted by zephyrtr
2k needs to have some kind of Thread Hall of Fame. This should be the first thread to get in.
I'm gonna miss this thread, its almost become a daily habit of mine to check up on the thread, it truly needs to be placed in the digital equivalent of a glass trophy case. The best sleuthing thread I've ever seen or been a part of, its been an honor to sleuth and discuss with you all. Now, its time to go build an empire that will stand the test of time.
Just wait a few months or a year and we'll probably see another one for the next expansion.
Originally Posted by GeneralY7
What I have to say. I am pleased to see Sweden as one of the civilizations. I do not feel that Sweden has covered the tundra and snow well, so there is a place open for the Inuit. The Huns are a lot of fun. I play Ethiopia the most at the moment, as their ability to protect themselves is good. I have no complaints at the other civilizations yet.
Yeah, Ethiopia is pretty awesome!
Originally Posted by Polar Bear
I haven't actually played the Huns yet, but I'll at least try them at some point. I'm just thrilled I get to play as the Celts...I was wanting that from the start! And Sweden makes the perfect ally.
Sweden hates me in all of the games I've played with him.
Originally Posted by Hawk
I know what you mean...I'm playing Austria at the moment, and Sweden keeps declaring war with me, despite my best efforts to be friends. Sweden would be an awesome human ally - provided the human is loyal to you that is - or would work well if you played as Sweden and made lots of friends, but as an AI I'm seeing that they're not all that friendly.
Originally Posted by HKY09
So, what options does Byzantium have for their extra belief? Can they save it for when they enhance the belief? Two enhancer beliefs could provide amazing synergy.
They have to take it when they found the religion, BUT it can be an enhancer belief. It can be any category of belief. This means they can get a boost to spread before anyone else.
Originally Posted by steveg700
Interesting. When I played Byzantium (briefly), I got as far as creating a religion. but when I clicked on the bonus belief, I only saw founder beliefs available. Funnier still, when I selected Tithe, it disappeared from the founder belief list completely. Even after I cancelled out of the window and went back in, I still couldn't select Tithe except as a bonus belief.
On an unrelated note, in a 12-civ game I started last night, Byzantium completely allowed religion to pass her by. I managed to net a great prophet and I wasn't even particularly eager to found a religion. AI needs to try a little harder.
Oh My God, Guys
Into the Renaissance scenario is Epicly AMAZING, 100% My Favorite,
Sadly, it is Crowded in Europe, But the Middle East is Really EMPTY
I haven't tried the Renaissance scenario yet...Guess I should! It's excellent that they're giving us these scenarios as with the expansions and DLCs, and I hope to see at least a few more.
In case you guys haven't heard yet, there's tech quotes and more unit stuff ingame for a Civil War scenario, based on the American Civil War...
I didn't know this, please tell us more!
Originally Posted by Pouakai
I'd probably be more interested in the American war of independence, which I'd hope you could play as the Iroquois still, or some other tribes, such as the Tsalagi...Don't know why exactly, but it's a little more interesting to me.
Hey, I'd be all for the American civil war if they added the Sioux with it, despite the "Indian wars" being kind of a side point, and mostly unrelated to the civil war itself (aside from some Native Americans fighting in the war under colonial leaders that is).
- Here's a historical fact...Australia nearly had a little war of independence itself, only it wouldn't have gone well even if everyone turned up sober! Instead the highlight was at the Eureka stockaid, where only a small number of the original civilian "army" were awake - and sober - when the actual army arrived.
Hi guys!! I love to choose China
Hello Myra, welcome to forums!
This thread is a bit obsolete now, you should ask that here in the General Discussion: