Civ 2 Standard Changes

Dr.Oogkloot · July 27, 2000, 07:08

Hello everyone,

There are a few simple changes I think everyone should make in Civ 2.
Firstly, replacing the Sioux Civ with the Incas. I think this is a real no-brainer: the Incas were historically more advanced and important, and in my opinion more interesting too. Furthermore this is better for geographical balance. I'm also thinking about replacing the Carthaginians with something else, maybe the Dutch.
I also replace the SETI Program wonder with the Internet (which should also require computers and is more important, and if it's not a wonder it at least deserves its own tech). A disadvantage here is that the icon would be wrong but that can be edited too.
I also replace that ghastly purple shield color (seventh civ) in city.gif with a nice dark grey. After all, how could I ever respect a purple civ?
I've also changed all rulers in rules.txt to male rulers and replaced "she" with "he" etc. in labels.txt. This solves the problem of having to think of a female leader for each (new) civ; I also think it's much nicer to play against Augustus than Livia, for example (I don't know of any civ where I would choose a female leader as one of the two most important/interesting ones).
Since it's ridiculous to have alpine troops defending cities, I changed their defense value to 4 and their attack value to 6. I also added a "Heavy Infantry" unit for city defense (ADM 7/5/1) (Heavy Weapons tech requires conscription and machine tools).

Actually I've made much more extensive changes than these but I think these ones are quite simple changes and I really don't think there's a reason not to make them.
Anyway, if anyone has comments or other ideas, please reply.

Emperor Oogkloot the Somewhat Acceptable

Hasdrubal · July 27, 2000, 07:58

quote:

Originally posted by Dr.Oogkloot on 07-27-2000 07:08 AM
I'm also thinking about replacing the Carthaginians with something else, maybe the Dutch.

What !?

-----

---

--

---

-

---

--

---

----

-----

---

quote:

I don't know of any civ where I would choose a female leader as one of the two most important/interesting ones.

Victoria, Catherine the Great, Cleopatra, Boadicea, Gunnhild and Dido spring to mind...

------------------
Hasdrubal's Home.
Ceterum censeo Romam esse delendam.
[This message has been edited by Hasdrubal (edited July 27, 2000).]

tonic · July 27, 2000, 20:41

In modern times, Thatcher (however much one may hate her conservative politics), Cori Aquino of the Philippines, Bandaranaike of Sri Lanka (formerly Ceylon), "Ang San Su Chi" (phonetically transcribed, check spelling later) of Burma, Mary Robinson of Ireland and NZ has one currently (Janet something?)

AFAIK the US never had a female President or they may already be having a de facto one in Hillary?

Ken Hinds · July 28, 2000, 01:17

And Golda Mier, Indira Ghandi, Pakistan had one for a while also.

Tonic, Legend, and maybe fact also, has it that during President Wilson's stroke that his wife was actually making the decision in his name. The general public just wasn't informed of his condition.

Ken

Oldman · July 28, 2000, 05:02

Hasdrubal, Chill man!!!!! you're starting to sound like a bleedin' feminist!!!!!

But i have to say that you should have the female world leaders, especially Boadicia!! Have you seen her daughters? Woof!!! Now, anyone who can produce children looking like that, should definitely have their own nation!!!!

Hasdrubal · July 28, 2000, 06:03

Oldman, yeah, welsh girls are great.

Well, all one of them that I know personally are.
Oh, and I don't really care what anybody says about former woman-rulers. But don't nobody dare take Carthage out of the game! Grrr!

OK, let's give Oogkloot's post the serious reply that it deserves:

quote:

Firstly, replacing the Sioux Civ with the Incas.

I've done that also! I agree.

quote:

I'm also thinking about replacing the Carthaginians.

Uhm, like I said in my previous post...

quote:

I also replace the SETI Program wonder with the Internet

Makes a lot of sense. I think that Civ is showing it's age here. We can probably expect the internet making an appearance in Civ III.

quote:

I also replace that ghastly purple shield color.

That's a matter of taste. I like purple, it's the colour of kings and Prince. (the artist formerly known as 'symbol')

quote:

I've also changed all rulers in rules.txt to male rulers

Everybody's been over this one already. Some female rules that appear in the game seem a bit forced indeed, and are really only there to provide players with the option of playing as a woman. (Livia, and, uh... oh well, they're not important anyway).

quote:

Since it's ridiculous to have alpine troops defending cities, I changed their defense value to 4 and their attack value to 6.

Alpine troops suck! When you make use of their one redeeming factor, moving through heavy terrain, they hardly have any attack value left. Maybe their movement factor should be changed to two. Then you can still attack after you're done skiing through the countryside.

------------------
Hasdrubal's Home.
Ceterum censeo Romam esse delendam.

tonic · July 28, 2000, 19:14

quote:

Originally posted by Ken Hinds on 07-28-2000 01:17 AM
Tonic, Legend, and maybe fact also, has it that during President Wilson's stroke that his wife was actually making the decision in his name. The general public just wasn't informed of his condition.

Yes, they say behind every successful man there is a woman on whose shoulders he could relieve the burdens of the outside world. The converse seems to apply too - where would Margaret Thatcher be without supportive, homely hubby?

Allard HS · July 29, 2000, 08:13

quote:

I'm also thinking about replacing the Carthaginians with something else, maybe the Dutch.

A very wise thought. Male should be "William III" I think, female should be "Wilhelmina", or if you choose a second male instead of female "William the Silent" (Willem de Zwijger). And make their titles under republic "Stadtholder" (Stadhouder), under Democracy "Minister-President". Under fundy it should be "Bisschop" (Bischop), under Despotism "Duke" (Graaf).

And the colour is already good, orange. Just take some cities from an atlas and add them in the cities.txt too.

and then the game múst be perfect.

Allard HS · July 29, 2000, 08:17

droogkloot, nu begrijp ik je naam trouwens pas.

cool

The Mad Monk · July 29, 2000, 09:22

I think the Carthaginians should stay, but the Americans should go, replaced by Arabs, or possibly Turks, though the Babylonians and Persians arguably have that covered. Maybe Bantus, or the previouly mentioned Incas.

Anything but Americans. Why? It offends my sense of history. Americans (of which I am one) are an offshoot of the English, and (in game terms) a late offshoot at that. The starting tribes should represent cultures that have at least several thousand years of history behind them.

Of course, that's just my opinion...

Dr.Oogkloot · July 29, 2000, 18:31

quote:

Originally posted by Hasdrubal on 07-27-2000 07:58 AM
Victoria, Catherine the Great, Cleopatra, Boadicea, Gunnhild and Dido spring to mind...

I use Churchill instead of Victoria, Lenin instead of C. the Great, Vercingetorix instead of Boadicea, Leif Eriksson instead of Gunnhild (not a very good one I admit), and Hasdrubal (the ancient leader, not you) instead of Dido (isn't Dido completely fictional anyway? I could be wrong there though)

Some counter-examples (reasons to change labels.txt and rules.txt)
Ishtari, Amaterasu and Nazca are goddesses not leaders IIRC (I use Nebukhadnezar, Hirohito and Cuauhtemoc respectively), and therefore not at all appropriate for Civ2. I already mentioned Livia (there are about two hundred leaders I'd put there before her). IIRC Hippolyta wasn't even Greek.

And I'll give you my reasons for changing the Carthaginians to the Dutch: firstly, as Allard said, the orange color fits them better; secondly, I'm Dutch myself; thirdly, the Carthaginians tend to behave like bastards in Civ 2; fourthly: nothing personal Hasdrubal but I just don't like Carthaginians.

Emperor Oogkloot the Somewhat Acceptable, One-Man Civilization and Bouncing Corpse (not really but I think it sounds nice)

PS If anyone reading this has not replaced Sioux with Incas please post here, I'd like to know why not.
PPS The Celts are another candidate to be edited out IMO

Dr.Oogkloot · July 29, 2000, 18:51

D'oh Double-Posted again
[This message has been edited by Dr.Oogkloot (edited July 29, 2000).]

Dr.Oogkloot · July 29, 2000, 18:52

quote:

Originally posted by tonic on 07-27-2000 08:41 PM
In modern times, Thatcher (however much one may hate her conservative politics), Cori Aquino of the Philippines, Bandaranaike of Sri Lanka (formerly Ceylon), "Ang San Su Chi" (phonetically transcribed, check spelling later) of Burma, Mary Robinson of Ireland and NZ has one currently (Janet something?)

I never use any of these civilizations except for the English, and for the English I use Henry/Churchill/Cromwell (don't remember which two of the three)

Dr.Oogkloot
Look I'm a NONE Settler!

------------------
"Mijn diepste gevoelens zitten zo diep dat ik ze niet eens voel"
- Bert Vanderslagmulders

Hasdrubal · July 29, 2000, 19:35

quote:

Originally posted by Dr.Oogkloot on 07-29-2000 06:31 PM
isn't Dido completely fictional anyway?

Dido is a true historical character. Even though most stories surrounding her are myth or fiction (Virgil), there is no doubt that she did indeed exist and founded Carthage.

quote:

the Carthaginians tend to behave like bastards

Go Carthage! There used to be a lot of sayings about Cartaginians in Ancient times. One of them made it into English: A Carthaginian Peace -> a peace with particular harsh conditions on the defeated party.

quote:

I just don't like Carthaginians.

As for great female rulers: again, history is up to its 'eyeballs' with fine examples.

------------------
Hasdrubal's Home.
Ceterum censeo Romam esse delendam.
[This message has been edited by Hasdrubal (edited July 29, 2000).]

Gatekeeper · July 29, 2000, 23:10

quote:

Originally posted by Dr.Oogkloot on 07-29-2000 06:31 PM
PS If anyone reading this has not replaced Sioux with Incas please post here, I'd like to know why not.
PPS The Celts are another candidate to be edited out IMO

***

Dr. Oogkloot:

Well, I haven't replaced the Sioux with the Incas. Why? Because I really don't feel like it. Besides, IMHO, the Sioux are supposed to representative of the North American tribes in general. Also, I think the Aztecs are supposed to represent Central and South American cultures in general.

**shrug** Whatever floats your boat, though. That's what makes Civ II such a joy to play — its accessibility and ability to alter things is amazing (unlike C:CTP).

CYBERAmazon

Thue · July 30, 2000, 06:43

Get a decent civ game that supports more than 14 nations. Freeciv currently have 36, including Carthaginians, Dutch, Sioux and Inca.

Gatekeeper · July 30, 2000, 14:48

Thue:

Get FreeCiv ported over to the Macintosh platform! Until then, I stuck with a measly 14 nations

.

BTW, what engine is FreeCiv based on? Civ I or Civ II?

CYBERAmazon

Az · July 30, 2000, 17:11

"Who can respect a purple civ"

well I kinda respect the mongols . anyway , why aren't gray and purple two different colours ?

P.S.

americans out . ( sorry )
Incas in .
celts out
zulus in but please get another civ to southern and central civ .... like ethiopians.

arabs in , of course . ( could be implimented with that nomadic idea , as well as mongols, coz their starting point is mekka , in the desert , an oasis .

russians as always
atzeks as always
romans as always , but they never grow up to be an empire in civ , actually .

Native americans , not sioux , and they should be that kinda nomadic civ. and they could resist the upcoming atzecs from the north .

turks : I dunno .

Hebrews : oh I am tempted but between babilonians , egyptians , arabs and Persians?

well I guess they'll have to raise the map resolution , if you know what do I mean.

coz it's kinda hard to place 280 million ppl ( I bet there is more )in the middle east on 21 tiles . I barely get size 35 city .

------------------
Prepare to Land !

Thue · July 30, 2000, 17:41

quote:

Originally posted by CYBERAmazon on 07-30-2000 02:48 PM
Thue:

Get FreeCiv ported over to the Macintosh platform! Until then, I stuck with a measly 14 nations

.

BTW, what engine is FreeCiv based on? Civ I or Civ II?

CYBERAmazon

Actually someone is working on a MAC port.
Freeciv has it's own engine, which is custimizable via rulesets to play like civ I or II.

Dr.Oogkloot · July 30, 2000, 19:34

quote:

Originally posted by Hasdrubal on 07-29-2000 07:35 PM

As for great female rulers: again, history is up to its 'eyeballs' with fine examples.

Name just one. (And note that not every leader is a great leader)
As for the eyeball thing: apparently you speak Dutch?

Dr.Oogkloot

Dr.Oogkloot · July 30, 2000, 19:40

quote:

Originally posted by CYBERAmazon on 07-29-2000 11:10 PM
***

Dr. Oogkloot:

Well, I haven't replaced the Sioux with the Incas. Why? Because I really don't feel like it.

It only takes a few minutes to change it...

quote:

Besides, IMHO, the Sioux are supposed to representative of the North American tribes in general. Also, I think the Aztecs are supposed to represent Central and South American cultures in general.

Well, I tend to see every civ only as that civ itself instead of as representing multiple civs; and even if you look at it that way, I still think the Middle/South-American tribes deserve two representatives and the North-American tribes zero.
By the way did I mention that the Sioux city names are silly?

Emperor Oogkloot the Somewhat Acceptable

------------------
"Mijn diepste gevoelens zitten zo diep dat ik ze niet eens voel"
- Bert Vanderslagmulders

Scouse Gits · July 31, 2000, 04:58

My threeha'p'orth - Carthaginians STAY - I couldn't play them if they weren't there - Americans OUT - for the valid historical reasons rather than simple xenophobia.
Replacement is more problematical - Incas are good candidates; the Dutch as a late offspring of the Spanish fail by the same yard-stick as the US - How about melonesians or some such - my history/geography isn't much good , but surely there were some early civs in that neck of the woods??

Good civin'

------------------
____________
Scouse Git[1]

"CARTAGO DELENDA EST" - Cato the Censor

Gatekeeper · July 31, 2000, 20:35

Dr. Oogkloot:

I've already customized my RULES.TXT file to suit my needs. Suffice to say, many things have been changed to enhance realism. I decided to keep the tribes as is because it was geographically balanced (although something in Australia and South America would've been nice ... could have been accomplished by adding three more nation choices ... Incas, Aborigines, and Barbarian).

I beg to differ about no representation in North America. There were many great Indian nations — the Sioux, Cherokee, Anasazi, Mohawk and others. Sioux names were derived from place names, mainly. Not actual settlements since they were a nomadic people after being driven from the woodlands of Wisconsin and eastern Minnesota.

About them Carthaginians ... gee, they were conquered over 2000 years ago. Do they *really* count after so long?

CYBERAmazon

Dr.Oogkloot · July 31, 2000, 23:21

quote:

Originally posted by CYBERAmazon on 07-31-2000 08:35 PM
Dr. Oogkloot:

I've already customized my RULES.TXT file to suit my needs.

There's no reason you can't customize it even further.

quote:

I decided to keep the tribes as is because it was geographically balanced.

Having one civ in North America, one in middle and one in South is more geographically balanced than two in North, one in middle and none in South

quote:

I beg to differ about no representation in North America. There were many great Indian nations — the Sioux, Cherokee, Anasazi, Mohawk and others.

The Incas were much greater than any of those IMO, probably greater than all of them combined too.

Emperor Oogkloot the Somewhat Acceptable

------------------
"Mijn diepste gevoelens zitten zo diep dat ik ze niet eens voel"
- Bert Vanderslagmulders

Dr.Oogkloot · July 31, 2000, 23:25

By the way, a few more counter-examples (for editing labels.txt)

Bortei (who?) vs Timur Lenk
Jeanne d'Arc vs Napoleon
Maria Theresa vs Bismarck or Hitler

Dr.Oogkloot

Gatekeeper · August 1, 2000, 01:34

Dr. Oogkloot:

***
Having one civ in North America, one in middle and one in South is more geographically balanced than two in North, one in middle and none in South
***

That depends. In my case, I am using a different Earth map than the one supplied with the game and, secondly, I've done some slight relocating to reflect a more "genuine" appearance.

Good luck convincing others to make your recommended changes

.

CYBERAmazon

Jim W · August 1, 2000, 22:42

Is this the place to bring in my pet peeve, such as Romans and Babylonians running around on the same map, when in actual fact the Babylonians were long gone Charlie when the Romans got started?

And it gets worse if you throw in some Americans, under the magnificent Despot, Abe Lincoln.

So I've been using Random maps, and progressively changing the names of the Civs, along with the names of thie cities. that way, I get Civs on the board who have no connection to known history, something I find a bit easier to work with.

Jim W

SCG · August 2, 2000, 06:59

quote:

Originally posted by Jim W on 08-01-2000 10:42 PM
Is this the place to bring in my pet peeve, such as Romans and Babylonians running around on the same map, when in actual fact the Babylonians were long gone Charlie when the Romans got started?

kind of makes you wonder if the producers of shows like "Xena, Warrior Princess" have been playing too much Civ II, doesn't it. I mean with Xena leading the Amazon Greeks up against Ghengis Khan of the Mongols and then next episode against Livia of the Romans

------------------
April Cantor: Sire, in order to expand further we must first gain favor of the King

SCG: darn, I've never really got the hang of that tribute thing, guess it will be a long time until i make prince

*goes off and starts gifting gold and techs*

Dr.Oogkloot · August 2, 2000, 23:10

quote:

Originally posted by Jim W on 08-01-2000 10:42 PM
Is this the place to bring in my pet peeve, such as Romans and Babylonians running around on the same map, when in actual fact the Babylonians were long gone Charlie when the Romans got started?

I don't see this as a problem. Civ 2 is not supposed to represent history exactly; think of it as a nice what-if.

Dr.Oogkloot

cavebear · August 3, 2000, 18:49

First, I don't alter my rules.txt. I occasionally host, and I think it is unfair to present players with unfamiliar civs/units/battle factors.

Second, I like having the American civ. I have enough trouble remembering where my cities *are* without having to learn entirely weird city names.

Third, "purple": Purple is OK, navy is OK, just not both of them. They are too similar. I've injured more than one ally (or allowed an enemy to wander around) that way. Change one of them to pink or magenta.

Fourth, I don't have any problem with female leaders. I even use one myself sometimes. Heck, I'd use Marvin the Martian sometimes, if the graphic was available.

------------------
Proud participant in GameLeague...

Proud Warrior of the O.W.L. Alliance...