CIVILIZATIONS (ver2.1): hosted by LordStone1

LordStone1 · June 27, 1999, 18:49

Continue your discussion here.

Eggman · June 27, 1999, 23:01

Well, yes, the Vikings really aren't a "civ" in the purest sense of the word. But they have better name recognition than the Swedes. Most people have heard of the Vikings and have some concept of what they did. I would bet big money that most people do not know that Sweden was ever a major power. Of course, in the US I would bet money that most people don't know where Europe is on the map, but that's another story.

Also, the Vikings are sort of a catch-all for all of Scandanavia. As I mentioned before, Denmark and especially Norway are long-shots at best.

Hopefully, there will be plenty of empty slots to fill with any civ you desire. ARE YOU LISTENING FIRAXIS? MORE CIV OPTIONS IS BETTER!

BTW, in Civ2 the Viking herald wore a horned helmet, did he not? They didn't wear those in real life - that's a movie invention. Or do I have that wrong?

NotLikeTea · June 28, 1999, 07:06

The helmet brings up an interesting point...

I participate in an internet raytracing competition. In one round, a fellow did a scene featuring a sunset. He carefully researched astronomy to get the exact size of the sun in the sky, even accounting for factors like atmosphere. As accurate a sunset as is possible.

Now, when the results came in, he recieved the same comment over and over again: the sun is way too small. And it was true, it did look too small.

What does this have to do with Civ? Well, it shows that the APPEARANCE of accuracy is far more important than accuracy itself. Perhaps the Swedes were more important than the Vikings, but people THINK that the vikings were more important. Perhaps horned helmets were inaccurate, but people THINK that they were accurate. No matter how many references you cite, and how much research you do, we still think that vikings should have horned helmets, and unhorned vikings just look wrong.

In another thread (or an earlier version of this one, I can't remember) I suggested that proper spellings be used. Mao Zedong instead of Mao Tsetung, Chinngis instead of Ghengis. Again, these are more accurate, but since they don't match popular opinion, people will never accept them.

Everyone has read about Ghengis Kahn and Mao Tsetung, therefore they are correct. Similarly, everyone has seen horned vikings in movies, therefore vikings wore horns.

A result of pop culture? Yeah, but it can't be discounted either... Appearance of realism is more important than realism itself.

[This message has been edited by NotLikeTea (edited June 28, 1999).]

Andy B · June 28, 1999, 16:40

Yes Eggman you are very right.

EnochF · June 28, 1999, 17:15

Well, actually it's Genghis, not Ghengis, and it's Tse-tung, not Tsetung, but aside from that, you're bloody well right! To appearances! [drink]

Hell, in Italian versions of the Encarta encyclopedia, they think some Italian shoemaker invented the telephone. Go figure.

Theben · June 28, 1999, 17:31

And in romanji (roman-zin) shinto should be spelled sinto, Tokyo spelled Toukyou, arigato= arigatou, etc.

Monk · June 28, 1999, 18:52

Vikings forever. Make that a demand from all us Scandinavians Lordstone... especially the Danes and Norwegians

Yeah, and be sure to get city placement right, just to please all us stubborn, nitpicking perfectionists

Cities like Birka and Jelling should be some of the first on the Viking list. Unlike what Activision told us, Copenhagen isn't a Viking city, neither is Bornholm. Actually, Bornholm isn't even a city, it's an island

I like smileys.

[This message has been edited by Monk (edited June 28, 1999).]

Imran Siddiqui · June 29, 1999, 17:49

Vikings should be included, but what about adding the Swedes as well? I mean the Swedes were a powerful nation for many years. Add both!

monolith94 · June 29, 1999, 19:05

As long as they include the Tibetans, I'm a happy camper.

Cartagia the Great · June 30, 1999, 22:35

Perhapse, instead of the Vikings, it would be acceptable to change their name to the Norse? I'd accept this, and I think most others would to. Also i'm the one who segested the c'correct names' thing, and I still like accurancy and realism in such cases, just me, but it addles me to see horned Vikings and othr historical misconceptions like that...just the arm chair historian in me

NotLikeTea · July 1, 1999, 00:00

Speaking of names...

Who "discovered" North America in 1492?

Our textbooks say Christopher Columbus. French texts say Christophe Colombe. Of course, his parents probably called him Christopho Colombo..

See? It's probably besat to stick with one naming system

Ekmek · July 1, 1999, 20:34

How did this turn in to the Viking thread? I guess the civilizations argument lost some steam.

One thing that is debatable is what really defines the civilization and that is what it looks like its heading to here. To some its appearance, some its language, borders, culture. Theses are the more traditional definitions, but America (among other nations)really defies all ofthese (borders too, look how many people live abroad and corporations do too). Perhaps in the 21st century civilization is a different meaning altogether. I'm just saying what a civilization is should be agreed upon (and seems already dictated by microprose) and then we can get over the whole viking argument.

------------------
"Destiny has left two courses open to me on my journey to the grave. Either die young and gloriously or live long and anonymously. I choose the first." - Achilles, The Iliad

LordStone1 · July 1, 1999, 22:18

Honestly, I am not going to include any of this silly Swedish-Viking arguments in this thread. I'm just going to put this:

"BR, there's some controversy over whether the Scandinavian countries are Vikings or not. My suggestion is to go with whatever you want and let them deal with it themselves."

Now, any other ideas for civilizations?

Eggman · July 1, 1999, 22:58

There should be a Ghana/Mali/Songhai civilization. There size and wealth is probably the most impressive in sub-Sahara Africa. However, they do cover pretty much all the same territory so you would have to include only one of them (like the Babylonians and Assyrians combined into the Babylonians). Personally, I would suggest the Mali.

One thing I would like to see is for civilizations to become really differentiated. Have the civs have personality and uniqueness. In Civ2, the only difference between the various civs is if they attack you now or later (except for the perfectionist civs, which failed to grow and thus were doomed). It would be nice to have science dominated civs and really warlike civs and very diplomatic but cunning civs that ACT differently. I don't just want Alexander picture and name up there, I want to fight Alexander (or a decent fascimile). Also, I should have the option to randomize these personalities. Maybe even have multiple leaders with all different personalities to get a real feel (Who wants a peaceloving Alexander? Give me a Plato!)

Also, if there could be a way that civilizations could become unique in their technology, at least for a while, that would be nice. Somone suggested minor techs which would provide you with some special units or abilities if you were so lucky to get one. Thus, different civs could have somewhat different strategies working with these strengths. Now, I don't care about linking these advances permanently with the civ (only the Japanese can build Samauri, the English Longbowmen, etc.) - just that civs can become unique, at least for a little while.

Theben · July 1, 1999, 23:54

I second Mali. Ghana was never that strong. Songhai was stronger, but wasn't as interesting.
Leaders would be:
Sundjata (male, warlike, expansionist)
Musa (male, peaceful, perfectionist-technologist, religious)
Soumaoro Kante' (male, very warlike)
Sogolon (female, peaceful)
Sassouma Berete' (female, warlike)
Others if need be.

Utrecht · July 2, 1999, 13:47

This may have been discussed before in more detail, and if so, I apologize.

I have been thinking more on the "minor" nation concepts and can see the "realism" need for it, but frankly, they would seem to get in the way and slow the game down.

I am a firm believer in letting the game decide who is a minor nation and who is not. Realisitcally there were two main reasons that a civ rose to the top.

1) Geography
2) Leadership

The map dictates 1 and we the gameplay/AI dictate the second.

What I would not mind seeing is that surrendering of a civ to another and that second civ beoming a minor. Again the game dictates this.

Additionally, the chance for revolution should be higher. This would make happiness techs more important and force reaserch away from a strict hard science approach.

EnochF · July 2, 1999, 14:12

Theben mentioning multiple leaders has got me thinking about dynasties again.

It sounds tempting to give each tribe five leaders with a rudimentary personality of his or her own, but in the end this is going to end up being a lot of busywork for programmers. I mean, I can come up with five major leaders for America, England, France, Germany, Egypt, China, Rome, Greece, the Hebrews, probably Spain, probably the Arabs, maybe Japan... but that's about it. And some nations in the game will have only dictators as leaders. Who would be the ideal choice as "peaceful leader of Babylon"?

Back when I first suggested dynasties, I just figured there would be variations on a single name unless the player chose a new one. Maybe the leader would occasionally change from male to female, so Comrade Hatshepsut would take over from Consul Rameses, but I never considered that the democratic leader of Egypt would be Anwar Sadat.

So now I'm wondering whether I really thought about this enough... maybe dynasties would needlessly complicate things.

Andy B · July 2, 1999, 16:16

A comment to the dynasty leaders discusion Why do they have to have real names. Cant they have the first the second... exampel(USA) Bill Clinton I, Bill Clinton II, Bill Clinton III, Bill Clinton IX... And when a new dynesty comes the can be called George Washington I... That way you don´t have to come up with so many names. You relly don´t have to pick the big leaders names.

Ecce Homo · July 2, 1999, 16:42

I believe we should keep on with the "viking fuss" in the General forum.

One of my points was, as I have mentioned several times before, that there should not be a problem to include 100+ civs, as long as there are enough city and leader names.
[This message has been edited by Ecce Homo (edited July 02, 1999).]

Transcend · July 2, 1999, 21:48

Introducing dynasties will make the game too complicated; how about assigning each civlization different leaders for different ages? Then the ages could be divided up in Ancient, Middle, and Modern. Here are some examples:
Americans: George Washington - Abraham Lincoln - FDR
Babylonians: Akkad - Hammurabi - Nebukadnezar
British: William the Conqueror - Elizabeth I - Winston Churchill
Chinese: Ying Cheng(Shi Huang Di) - Li Shimin(Tang Tai Zung) - Mao Tsetung
Egyptian: Ramses II - Saladin - Nasser
Franks(French): Charlemagne -
Teutons(Germans): Frederik Barbarossa - Frederik the Great - Adolf Hitler
Greeks: Alexander - Basileios II - ?
Japanese: ? - Tokugawa - Hirohito
Persians: Darius I - ? - Ayatollah Khomeini
Romans: Romulus - Octavian - Constantine
Russians: Ivan the Grozny - Peter the Great - Vladimir Lenin
Turks: ? - Mehmed II - Kemal Ataturk

Transcend · July 2, 1999, 21:52

My previous post actually reiterated the idea brought by EnochF. I also have a hard time to imagine Hitler in a democratic government. But what the heck, this is just a game, and game allows alternate history.

EnochF, what are the leaders for each civ you come up with?

Theben · July 2, 1999, 22:44

I don't think dynasties would be too complicated; just tweak the leader "personalities" in the rules.txt for each one. It might be a headache for Firaxis to have to research enough leaders per civ, though.

Cartagia the Great · July 4, 1999, 20:20

I have to agree, although I must say I do agree with the idea of giving a Civilization two or morel eaders of each gender, each with a slightly differant personality, it should shake things up a little bit.

Oh, for the person who ws giving a few of these names, the middle leader of Persia would have to be Shapur, the second leader of Sassanidian Persia and one of its strongest leader.

Theben · July 5, 1999, 01:48

Few more Japanese leaders:
Hideyoshi (warlike expansionist)
Oda Nobunaga (warlike expansionist)
Ko Sanjo (female, perfectionist)
Tomoe Gozen (female, warlike, perfectionist)
Many others if requested.

July 5, 1999, 11:22

I like the idea of giving civs leader units but don't let it be based on ancient-medieval-modern basis.

Instead have a group (say 5) of choices of leaders that each civ can make. Each has different characteristics and personalities. By characteristics I mean:

- unit offense , defense and movement
- hit points and firepower
- effectiveness of administration (reduced corruption in cities around the leader)
- effectiveness of leadership - attack and/or defense bonus given to units within 2 squares of it
- tactics - increased or decreased viewing range

As the unit gets "older" , it would permanently lose hit points until it reached zero or was killed. When it declines to a few hit points, the civ would be given the option to build another to replace it and that unit would come into existance when the previous leader "dies".

However, if a leader is killed, there would be some turbulance and a civ would have to build a new leader from scratch and have no benefits as a civ would have no leader in the period between when the previous leader was killed and the new leader was built.

Sorry if I am repeating someone's else's ideas, I didn't read the entire thread yet.

July 5, 1999, 11:28

Continued idea...

Perhaps certain leaders wouldn't be available until a certain date or a certain technology is reached.

Certain techs would give all of the leaders additional bonuses to continue to make them useful as technologies advanced. For example, discovering leadership would give all leaders a +1 to their offense and defensive amounts (from eg. 4/2/1 to 5/3/1)

Maybe for some variety a civ would not be able to replace a recently deceased leader with the same unit it would have to be another leader unit.

Other possible bonuses:
+10% gold, +10% beakers, increased/decreased effectiveness of happiness, etc.

July 5, 1999, 17:17

Americans: George Washington (Adams, Jefferson, Nathaniel Greene, Madison)-Abe Lincoln (Grant, Johnson, Hayes)-Dwight Eisenhower (FDR, JFK, Ronald Reagan, Bob Dole, Bill Clinton, Dick Nixon)
Babylonians: Sargon I-Hammurabi-Nebuchadnezzar II (Nabonidus)
British: William I-Elizabeth I-Tony Blair (Winston Churchill, Bernard Montgomery)
Chinese: Shi Huangdi-Tang Tai Zung-Deng Xiaoping (Mao Zedong, Jiang Zemin)
Egyptians: Ramesses II-Saladin-Anwar Sadat
French: Charlemagne-Louis XIV-Charles de Gaulle (Mitterand, Chirac)
Germans: Attila-Frederick-Helmut Kohl(Wilhelm II, Hitler, Doenitz)
Greeks: Pericles (Alexander, Leonidas, Socrates, Perseus...)-Baseilos II-Constantus something
Japanese: Yamato-Tokugawa-Akihito
Persians: Cyrus II-Shapur I-Ayatollah Khomeini
Romans (Italians): Romulus (Scipio, Caesar, Octavian, Hadrian, Constantine), - , Benito Mussolini
Russians: Ivan IV-Peter the Great-Josef Stalin

------------------

Quote:

"Your mother was a hamster and your father smelled of elderberries!" -- John Cleese, "Monty Python and the Holy Grail"

The Brain · July 5, 1999, 18:48

I think there should be ALIEN civs that would only appear sometimes when you achieve let's say the Atomic Bomb. Because then they would know that the human race has gotten high enough in technology that they should worry. If they come then they might do one of two things- Attack the whole human race in a "war of the worlds", or they will "come in peace" and grant you acces to a future technology not researchable by anyone else (but they can steal it or you can trade it). Maybe with this you can build a super unit or whatever. So, have an ALIEN CIVILIZATION!

------------------
Acctually I'm a genetically altered lab mouse plotting to take over the world!

Eggman · July 5, 1999, 22:12

Brain: That idea is so utterly ridiculous that I think I like it.

Are you pondering what I'm pondering?

Cartagia the Great · July 5, 1999, 22:27

Looks like brain has been reading HArry Turtledove's World War in the balance series