The difference between Athens and Sparta

[Lorizael]

Oh hi!

I’m Lorizael. You may remember me from such spam threads as “Finally” and “Introducing....”

But today (woohoo, finally unbanned!) I’m talking to you about something very important. Something that affects each and everyone one of us.

Culture. Ahhh, yes, culture, that which binds so many together and causes so many wars. In the latest of the Civ series, Civ III, Firaxis has implemented (and if I might say wonderfully) a concept of culture. It also goes together with Civ traits, Unique Units, Nationality and borders.

However, in Civ III you play a specific civilization with specific abilities, so that you can re-create that civilization. And this is definitely fun but there are players (and I know this has been discussed before) that want to actually start from scratch and create their own civilization.

The difference between Athens and Sparta?
The difference is that Athens is known best for its scientific and philosophical achievements whereas Sparta is known for its massive and elite armies.

Why?

Because very early on Sparta did something different from the rest of the city-states. Instead of colonizing (mostly) uninhabited areas when overpopulated, they decided to conquer another nearby people, and use their land and people. Because they were constantly afraid of unrest, they built a huge army to defend themselves against revolt and almost completely eliminated culture, science, and trade by building this army. They became very isolationist and feared for their rarely used (because they didn’t want to leave Sparta undefended) army.

All this because they decide to subjugate instead of colonize.

What I propose for Civ (IV I guess…) is there not just be culture points, but points for each individual traits (and I think there should be more traits). At the beginning you would have no points in any traits and would essentially not have a culture or identity. But by performing certain actions your point total would go up. For example if a worker improved a tile you would get a check in the Industrious column, and each turn your industrious rating would go up by one.

Here are (some) examples of things that would up your trait rates.

Militaristic: Winning battles, conquering cities, building barracks, military units, etc…

Commercial: Making trade agreements, building roads to resources, building harbors, marketplaces, etc…

Industrious: Building tile improvements, roading strategic resources, building factories, etc…

Religious: Building temples, instituting state religion (an idea I have similar to the government system), cathedrals, etc…

Expansionist: Building exploratory units, harbors, airports, etc…

Scientific: Having scientist specialists, high science rate, building libraries, universities, etc…

Obviously the point values for individual actions would have to vary otherwise some cultures would be too easy or difficult to acquire. Anyway, whatever were the two highest point totals at any given time would be the two traits your civilization had. This could slowly change over time as you stop doing one thing and start another. There could also be negative actions for certain traits (disbanding military units for Militaristic civs).

This way your culture and nationality would develop and change with the times.

I also think that culture should increase based on your civ traits. Therefore a Commercial civilization only increases its unique culture when buildings harbors and such. Though libraries would always increase culture (all the books are about trade goods…).

I think that if a city or region within your civilization took a radically different route as far as culture (compared to the rest of your civ) it might break away and form its own civilization. This has happened many times in history (United States Civil War).

I’m not sure how Unique Units and Golden Ages would work here, they might need to be scrapped. Maybe you could keep the peaceful golden ages and if you build a wonder that corresponds to your current culture, you enter a golden age. Though as always only one golden age per civilization.

Wow, I’ve written way too much. Just glad to be back. Someone respond?

Oh and NO SPAMMING!

[Mars]

Interesting point, you could just keep the UUs, they shouldn't effect your idea. it would be good if your Great Leaders would follow your US (unique style). It would make an interesting game and make you even more connected with your civ

[Blake]

Interesting post. However I feel that playstyle is sufficent to shape your civilisation.
For example, you build a marketplace, so are now making more commerce income. Your civilisation has become more commerical, no need to have some arbitary trait changes to show this...

Also, having traits change could annoy and frustrate some players, who would consider it a form of rating. It could easily detract from the enjoyment when the game falsely accuses your civ of being Militaristic, when you really consider it Commericial. Any algorithms to determine trait changes would probably be sub optimal, in the views of some players anyway. I think this alone makes it a bad idea. Some players simply wont like it, and most wiould probably be annoyed at one stage or another.

Lastly Small wonders will have this effect anyway, for example building several Banks allowing you to build Wall street. The small wonders you build will help shape your empire, while the pre-req to build them is determined by your playstyle.

[Lorizael]

You make some good points, Blake.

This is one of those things that realists (like the people making GGS) want to implement. I like realism to some extent (though of course not at the detriment of gameplay) and I like the idea of your civilization changing.

Don't get me wrong, I think Civ III will be awesome, I just like my idea better

The things is, why does a Civ start out as Militaristic or Commercial? in the very beginning there wasn't much difference between the Chinese and Egyptians, despite their distance from eachother. It's their landscape (to a large degree) and actions that shapes them and makes the unique.

Hey Blake, you're one of the guys who participated in my spamfest aren't you?

I've also felt that religion should have a bigger role in Civ. What does everyone else think?

[Blake]

While it does make a certain sense traits should evolve - I guarentee it would annoy many players (Ever played Black&White with it's alignment rating system??).

It could be argued (but I wont...) that the values of a civilization were often what made them distinctive... or another way of putting it, before a Civ had any values it was just a bunch of Barbarians.

Note: Values basically equals civilization traits...

Religion... I dont really have an opinion. I dont think it needs to be expanded on in Civ3. (Maybe in Civ4...)

Yep, and I partook in the Spamfest. (But I shall partake in no more spamming)

[CygnusZ]

Historically innacurate.

Remember that the Pelopenisian (yeah yeah, spelled wrong) war took place because of Athen's increaseing military presence across the Greece. The problem was that the Spartan alliance felt threatened by Athen's whom continued conquest and enslavement of lands. Athen's in reply said that they firmly believed that threatening Sparta was appropriate because a the success of a state should be based upon the might of its military.

In other words, the difference between Sparta and Athen's had more to do with the internal cultural issues rather than outlook on international affairs. I would say that Athen's is a militarestic democracy whereas Sparta is an militarestic dictatorship.

[Lorizael]

Originally posted by CygnusZ
Historically innacurate.

Remember that the Pelopenisian (yeah yeah, spelled wrong) war took place because of Athen's increaseing military presence across the Greece. The problem was that the Spartan alliance felt threatened by Athen's whom continued conquest and enslavement of lands. Athen's in reply said that they firmly believed that threatening Sparta was appropriate because a the success of a state should be based upon the might of its military.

In other words, the difference between Sparta and Athen's had more to do with the internal cultural issues rather than outlook on international affairs. I would say that Athen's is a militarestic democracy whereas Sparta is an militarestic dictatorship.

Alright well that's just info I got out of my history textbook. However Athens and Sparta's military differed. Sparta had lots of land based military whereas Athens had a larger Navy. And after Alexander died, Athens remained mostly neutral during all those conflicts, and that's when its culture and science prospered.

However, that's not the main point of this thread. Like my ideas?

[Mongoloid Cow]

Lorizael, I'm confused. Do you start off with no traits, and then your actions create them for you. For example; you are the Romans, and you decide to trade and invest in science instead of conquering or expanding, which would make you Comercial and Scientific. Then one day your attacked by the Americans or English or whoever, and you fight them back and conquer their civ, and suddenly you find yourself Militaristic and expansionist?

Or do you start off with the pre-defined traits and they might change by your actions?

Or do you start off with no traits or trait-related abilities, while the AI does, so you know that the Babylonians are backstabbers, or the Romans are out to monopolise, while your strategy develops your civilisation traits later on?

[Lorizael]

Originally posted by Mongoloid Cow
Lorizael, I'm confused. Do you start off with no traits, and then your actions create them for you. For example; you are the Romans, and you decide to trade and invest in science instead of conquering or expanding, which would make you Comercial and Scientific. Then one day your attacked by the Americans or English or whoever, and you fight them back and conquer their civ, and suddenly you find yourself Militaristic and expansionist?

Or do you start off with the pre-defined traits and they might change by your actions?

Or do you start off with no traits or trait-related abilities, while the AI does, so you know that the Babylonians are backstabbers, or the Romans are out to monopolise, while your strategy develops your civilisation traits later on?

No one starts out with any traits. The only reason you would pick Babylonians is because you like the name. Even the AI would have to develop over time.

And while in the beginning the first actions you take would define you immediately, as point totals accrued, it would take longer to change who you are.

If you did a little conquering very late in the game, it wouldn't have much impact. But if you went from peacful and trading with everyone, and then went on a conquering spree, taking cities left and right, you would turn militaristic and expansionist.

[Mongoloid Cow]

Now I get it!!! Seems like a good idea for Civ 4. They'd better start a suggestions forum for civ 4 soon!

[player1]

If CIV3 would have a scripting language,
I could make a such code.

[Skanky Burns]

Welcome back Lorizael
Dont get yourself banned again, your posts are entertaining to read

About your idea: Im split between liking it and hating it On one hand, starting out with no specific traits leaves you with a game of 'generic' enemy AIs, with no unique personality whatsoever. On the other hand, without your idea, a civ is stuck with their predetermined traits, no matter their actual playing style. A religious civ might spend their entire game without building a temple, or an expansionist civ could be stuck on an island...

So people, help me make up my mind

[Executor]

Originally posted by Lorizael
No one starts out with any traits. The only reason you would pick Babylonians is because you like the name. Even the AI would have to develop over time.

Why not have each civilization start with about 50 points in two traits. Then depending on your choices in the game, those traits can change to reflect the path you have chosen.

[Crouchback]

Civilization has never been about the group we choose to lead to triumph and glory, but about who we are as players. There was a funny and true column, Know Your Enemy by Lazarus and the Gimp, which spelt it out perfectly.

Civ 2 allowed us to make the choices as players that led to different sorts of societies and victories. Civ 3 demands that we evaluate ourselves from the outset. As we boot the game up we're going to be forced to put ourselves on the couch and honestly ask: "What kind of game do I want to play today?"

IMO you're right Lorizael, it's going to be totally unrealistic and very confining. But it may also be great fun.

Think about it. Gone is the trouble and effort of moulding a civilization to reflect your natural game style, just choose the Germans and get those Panzers rolling or buy into the Greeks and heap the bounty up in the Parthenon. As for changing tact mid-game to cope with unforeseen events or new opportunities: Don't. Play to your strength as a player and a nation.

We'll have to wait for the game, but my guess is that the differences between civilizations is going to make playing Civ 3 much more engrossing and enjoyable than any of its predecessors.

David

[Lorizael]

Originally posted by Executor


Why not have each civilization start with about 50 points in two traits. Then depending on your choices in the game, those traits can change to reflect the path you have chosen.

Actually, that sounds pretty good. That way you still have a chance to change, but everyone starts out a little different, cool

Shanky Burns, the enemy AI wouldn't be generic, because they would also evolve over time as you did, maybe I didn't make that clear.

And there have been several spam posts since I got back, but I've resisted and haven't replied to any of them! I being able to talk on Apolyton... not gonna let that happen again...

[Your.Master]

Sparta was a dictatorship? Funny. Yesterday Sparta was an Oligarchy.

No offense to the perpetrator of this heinous crime against history, most people don't even know what Sparta was, except that maybe, just maybe, it might have been Spartan

But his point stands. Athens was a democracy. It wasn't originally military, until the confederacy of...was it Delos? Just pretend it was, anyway...the league of Delos was formed to protect Greece from Persia. Some city-states decided to withdraw from the federation which Athens, lead member, was abusing, and they were promptly conquered. Their dues became tribute at that time. Athens went military, specifically in the naval sense, despite some who were outspokenly against it.

Sparta was an Oligarchy, which means "rule of the few" as opposed to democracy which is "rule of many". Oligarchy is basically a toned-down democracy where only a select few vote on all the decisions. Not surprisingly, this happened to be the Spartan upper class (the warrior class - in this way Sparta was under military rule). Still, oligarchy is considerably more civilized than many dictatorships (they had a slave class for a long time, which is bad, but they were freed by the government's grace).

Sparta was definitely military, and headed a Peloponnesian league.

Athens and Sparta bumped heads, but the reality of the whole thing is that Athens military spike was just that - a spike. Before and after that, Athens was predominately a scientific and cultural community.

Still, it shows how quickly a nation can change attitudes, and therefore I say that culture is culture (in game terms), not a bunch of sub-cultures.

[CygnusZ]

Well, aside from the historical view of your subject matter, I do have a few ideas about your game concepts...

Your game ideas sound like they build upon the concepts that were started in Alpha Centauri. While its true that culture expressed in the cumulative manner you suggested would provide more direction I find myself sort of disagreeing that any one civlization is bound as tightly to single ideologies as your suggest.

It seems to me that it is more realistic that a country should be able to shift from being a primiarly miltary based civilization to a consumer or science based civilization in a mere matter of turns. Remember how quickly the United States jumped from consumer science to commerical/science to consumer/science in a manner of 5 years during WW2.

So, I'm saying that the ideology of a civilzation should have more basis in its internal social factors rather than upon the external influence that the culture has ressonated. It should be forgotten at no time that civilizations are made of men and not materials. A revolution should represent exactly that, a radical change in the mindset of those whom are running the civilization. In doing so the felxibility of the game would increase giving room for the more realistic (and fun) world situation where the civilization would have to adapt to the situations that the world presents it with.

Bottom Line: Internal Factors should determine Culture, not external ones.

[Mars]

just because athens developed a gigantic and powerful navy doesn't mean that it got ride of science and aristry. It actually flourished during this time. Athens spread its empire to colonies and became extremely wealthy through trade. During the polpenisan wars (spelled wrong, i know) Athens refused to engage spartas well trained hoplite army in battle resulting in the long drawn out war it was. Instead of being a quick hoplite battle the spartans would come to athens sit outside the walls for a couple of weeks and then be forced to return to their farms, because athens built a wall all around them and had their navy defend the port where they were getting food. The war wasn't over until the spartans (bankrolled by the persian) built a navy as well and beat the athens navy in combat.
To get to the point of all this Athens still retained all of its poets and philosphers even though they built up their Navy.
Also Sparta started out as the lead member of the persian wars until the athiean navy tricked the persians into going through the narrow strait of Salimas(i believe that's what it was called) and many a crushing blow to the Persians did the Athieans start to lead the unity of greece against persia.

[Mars]

Originally posted by CygnusZ
Well, aside from the historical view of your subject matter, I do have a few ideas about your game concepts...

Your game ideas sound like they build upon the concepts that were started in Alpha Centauri. While its true that culture expressed in the cumulative manner you suggested would provide more direction I find myself sort of disagreeing that any one civlization is bound as tightly to single ideologies as your suggest.

It seems to me that it is more realistic that a country should be able to shift from being a primiarly miltary based civilization to a consumer or science based civilization in a mere matter of turns. Remember how quickly the United States jumped from consumer science to commerical/science to consumer/science in a manner of 5 years during WW2.

So, I'm saying that the ideology of a civilzation should have more basis in its internal social factors rather than upon the external influence that the culture has ressonated. It should be forgotten at no time that civilizations are made of men and not materials. A revolution should represent exactly that, a radical change in the mindset of those whom are running the civilization. In doing so the felxibility of the game would increase giving room for the more realistic (and fun) world situation where the civilization would have to adapt to the situations that the world presents it with.

Bottom Line: Internal Factors should determine Culture, not external ones.

I do agree but i think thats what lorizeal is saying as well, if your society does this your societies culture will change to this

[Zopperoni]

Funny sidenote: the brand of my bike is Sparta and the modelname is Athena...

[CygnusZ]

That's another interesting point... Athen's wasn't exactly developing military science that would have helped them in the war (remember Alexander the Great's phalanx formation? That must have been the only great innovation). Instead the Athenian developed philosphy and art. Which meant the war became seperate from the progress the Athenian's made.

So, I guess if we were to depict Athenian culture we would say that they gain a bonus to scientific development which is not associated with military capacity or that they can develop science at a hightened level but cannot build military units for that technology until another civilization shows them how to apply that technology?

Still then, that leaves Sparta high and dry. I'm tempted to say that they were in all ways an inferior civilization (Ethnocentric me) that just happened to possess military might that was equivical to the Athenian empire? Maybe in terms of game play we might say that the Spartan's can produce 1.5 Units per 1 that Athen's could produce? But that still is contradictary because the Athenian's are militarily based too. Athenian developed both humanties and military yet Sparta only invest in military. Perhaps Spartan's should be given a higher strategic planning in war bonus so that they are slightly more likely to win a battle than the Athenians? Sparta wins the war of course and it is mostly due to stratedgy....

So, Spartan's gain an advantage to tactics and Athenian's gain increased speed of gaining Humanities? I disagree with this model of game-playing but if we were going to use a static cultural basis this might be a good tradeoff?

[CygnusZ]

Originally posted by Mars


I do agree but i think thats what lorizeal is saying as well, if your society does this your societies culture will change to this

Lorizeal links culture to physical establishments whereas I'm saying all that is in the mind of the beholder. To me,the concept of a revolution changing the entire outlook of a nation regardless of previous physical development make sense. Although it would be on my wish-list to have something like a period of "Enlightenment" or "Great Awakening" shape the mind of the people (IE. They might trigger the revolution for you

[Akron]

Actually, I remember hearing this idea about shaping your traits with a point system of this sort a few weeks ago. Interesting, though difficult to implement.

Originally posted by Lorizael
I've also felt that religion should have a bigger role in Civ. What does everyone else think?

I think that culture portrays religion well enough already. There was a thread on putting religion in civ not too long ago, but we concluded that it was probably a bad idea.

[Lorizael]

I don't want that much control of your civilization, Cygnusz. If you want good stategy do it yourself. But I think within the confines of the six traits present, Sparta would have been more militaristic, and Athens more Scientific.

Here's the thing, enlightenment and revolution always comes from something. Usually becuase things are bad the way they are. In Civ terms, if your civ is not doing well, you might gear it in another direction, and by doing this change it's culture and society.

And what the US did during WWII was not change it's culture the way I am thinking. Instead, it used the neat little trick in Civ 3 of activating a War Economy, the enemy being Germany and Japan.

[Bostic]

your.master: It was called the Delian League. Just had to correct you.

[CygnusZ]

Yes, but I'm just pointing out that the actual difference between their cultures is that both are equally militaristic but the Spartan's have a slight edge in military organization. This doesn't reflect well in a fictional game... although I guess we could say that a Spartan 1-1-1 unit that goes up against an Athenian 1-1-1 unit should win 60% of the time due to greater strategic prowess.

Revolution is not controlled by the ruler, which is why I thought it would be neat if Revolution was caused by social facotrs (but it *IS* just a game). Philosophy has a tenedency to sprout up in societies which are doing quite well.

All of which is off the point anyway The main point was just that I thought that cultural development shouldn't be something which sprouts up "over time", but the nature of revolution was to cause radical change in the mindsets of men over short periods of time. In a way, it's like agreeing with the current model where if you have a revolution, the next government has completely changed the face of the nation.

[Mars]

All of which is off the point anyway The main point was just that I thought that cultural development shouldn't be something which sprouts up "over time", but the nature of revolution was to cause radical change in the mindsets of men over short periods of time. In a way, it's like agreeing with the current model where if you have a revolution, the next government has completely changed the face of the nation.

to manage that with Lori's system you could make it so that every time you conquer another civ, change government, or lose like 1/3 of your empire, culture changes are ampliflied.

[Lorizael]

I don't think having them win more often is a good way to do it. At least in Civ II it would be represented by the fact that Sparta would have a barracks (which they had many of) and Athens would not. This way Spartan units would start out as veteran and have an advantage. I'm betting Barracks will have a similar effect in Civ III.

And in my cultural system the Spartans would be Militaristic at least in part because... they had those Barracks. And it is true that the Spartans cutlure could be seen in the fact that their city was covered with military bases.

I do like the idea of revolutions being caused by unhappy citizens within a civilization, but I think that would be difficult to program. The question is, what factors exactly would cause a revolution, and what would be the result of this revolution (in game terms)? And as always, this takes a little control out of the hands of the player, which many (including me to some extent) do not wish to do.

Changes in cutlure though, still happen as a result of decisions made by government over a long period of time. I don't see why both of our ideas could not be implemented.