Thread Tools
Old October 2, 1999, 16:11   #31
Yakopepper
Chieftain
 
Local Time: 00:23
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Tomball, TX USA
Posts: 57
Ata your way off base.

I totally disagree with you. Empires like persia were more significant that any modern day country.

>>United States of America, Canada, Mexico, Brasilia, Argentinia, Portugal, Spain, France, Germany, United Kingdom, Ireland, Iceland, Italy, Austria, Hungary, Poland, and the northern ones (I dont know their english names), Soviet Union, China, India, Mongol(sp?), Iran, Iraq,<<

They should only include the most important civs in the 6000yrs of know history. And Most of the ones you mentioned dont make the top 20. Thats why they made it where you can type your one civ in, so you could practically make any civ you want. Several Ancient civs were very important in the long run of history and would be greatly discouraging to see them left off.

I also think they will atleast keep the ones they had on civII. They definitly should add Sumer.

Adding all the countries that it sells to is a complete waste of their time.

HAVE ONLY THE MOST SIGNIFICANT CIVS FORM BOTH ANCIENT AND MODERN TIMES.

Daniel
Yakopepper is offline  
Old October 3, 1999, 00:32   #32
Imran Siddiqui
staff
Apolytoners Hall of FameAge of Nations TeamPolyCast Team
 
Imran Siddiqui's Avatar
 
Local Time: 20:23
Local Date: October 30, 2010
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: on the corner of Peachtree and Peachtree
Posts: 30,698
Quote:
I also dont think Countries such as Canada, Australia, Poland, Denmark, Brazil and the Ethiopians should be on there, basically because I dont think of them as Civilizations!
Poland was one of the greatest nations in Europe in the 1600s, Denmark controled Norway and was King of Scandinavia, Brazil is the major South American nation, Ethiopia was the only African nation to resist European rule, and Canada and Australia should be there because we don't want them to yell at us .
Imran Siddiqui is offline  
Old October 3, 1999, 03:57   #33
Atahualpa
Spanish CiversCivilization III PBEMPtWDG2 Latin Lovers
Emperor
 
Atahualpa's Avatar
 
Local Time: 01:23
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: voice of reason
Posts: 4,092
Ancient civs suck. I only play modern ones: Germans, French, Spanish, Russia, but not those damn Persians or Sumer that dont interest me at all.

Ata

P.S.: Thats what I think and not a general thing!
Atahualpa is offline  
Old October 3, 1999, 10:45   #34
Theben
Deity
 
Theben's Avatar
 
Local Time: 20:23
Local Date: October 30, 2010
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: Dance Dance for the Revolution!
Posts: 15,132
"Poland was one of the greatest nations in Europe in the 1600s, Denmark control[l]ed
Norway and was King of Scandinavia, Brazil is the major South American nation, Ethiopia was the only African nation to resist European rule, and Canada and Australia should be there because we don't want them to yell at us."


Not only was Poland a great (large) nation, but at the time it was considered a center of learning, enlightenment, and was possibly the most tolerant of racial/ethnic diversity in all of Europe. As for Ethiopia, maybe they should use Kush/Nubia instead, a nation which played a vital role in sub-sahara trade and conquered the Egyptian Empire for a while. Sure, the Ethiopians resisted European rule, but more specifically they resisted Italian rule in the 1930's, which ain't saying much. No disrespect ai miei fratelli italiani, but they literally couldn't fight to save their lives! How do tanks lose to men with rifles (and poorly organized riflemen at that)? And in the Spanish civil war, they were the ones regularly getting beat up by the Lincoln Brigade.

As for Australia and Canada, we only need fear dissing Dominikos and Alex's Horse; no threat there...
Theben is offline  
Old October 3, 1999, 10:52   #35
Yakopepper
Chieftain
 
Local Time: 00:23
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Tomball, TX USA
Posts: 57
Imran

So what if Ethiopia was the only African nation to resist European control. What the hell does that account for?

It really doesnt matter if Denmark controlled scandinavia or not. A lot of peopled control it.

I agree Brasil is a major SA country, but only major to SA and not Civilization. Its done piddly squat!

And I really coundnt care less if Canadians and Australins screamed at anyone, because thats why you can create your own civ!

Poland they can add, at least they've been around long enough to be apart of history.

And about Ata<-- I really dont give a **** what he thinks anymore.

Daniel
Yakopepper is offline  
Old October 3, 1999, 14:27   #36
Atahualpa
Spanish CiversCivilization III PBEMPtWDG2 Latin Lovers
Emperor
 
Atahualpa's Avatar
 
Local Time: 01:23
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: voice of reason
Posts: 4,092
I'll take that as compliment

Ata
Atahualpa is offline  
Old October 3, 1999, 23:35   #37
Yakopepper
Chieftain
 
Local Time: 00:23
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Tomball, TX USA
Posts: 57
I'm not trying to make an enemy here so Ill clear things up. We merely have a difference of opinion here. I think we can all agree that they will at least have the same 21 civs from civII. And then (hopefully) add a dozen or so(this is all depending on how many civs they will allow in a game). Im hoping they will give us a choice of like 50 civs to choose from. Woundnt that be great.

I also had a brainstorm. How about if they allow about 10 slots for the player to custom and save his own civs which then could be used as the players civ or as a computer opponet? Understand? So essentially I could add another 10(?) civs cusomized to my own liking(civ name and perosnality, city names, ruler names, city icons and so forth). This would be of course on top of the civs they have already on the game. This way each person could have what they like--whether its modern countries or ancient civs.

Daniel
Yakopepper is offline  
Old October 4, 1999, 14:48   #38
Atahualpa
Spanish CiversCivilization III PBEMPtWDG2 Latin Lovers
Emperor
 
Atahualpa's Avatar
 
Local Time: 01:23
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: voice of reason
Posts: 4,092
Yep. Look, when there are French, Germans, Brits, Spanish, Americans (although I dont play them and Russians in I am already satisfied. When there are Austrians I am happy. I just wanted to express that I almost never play ancient civs. In civ2 I remember playing Japanese, Sioux, Germans, English, French, Spanish, Russians and Chinese. In Ctp I play Canada, Irish and Jamaica in addition to the ones mentioned above.
So, I dont really care, if there are Sumerians or Persians in the game, if they are in, its good for many other players, I dont care. Or lets say, I am neutral about that.

Ata
Atahualpa is offline  
Old October 4, 1999, 15:40   #39
Theben
Deity
 
Theben's Avatar
 
Local Time: 20:23
Local Date: October 30, 2010
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: Dance Dance for the Revolution!
Posts: 15,132
Yako,
You can already do this via the cities.txt file in civ2. Of course, you'll have to get appropriate names and city icons on your own, as well as possibly changing the info in the game.txt and labels.txt. I assume you want these interchangable from within the game itself?
Theben is offline  
Old October 4, 1999, 20:19   #40
Yakopepper
Chieftain
 
Local Time: 00:23
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Tomball, TX USA
Posts: 57
Im well aware that we're able to do it already. Im saying when we start the game there should be an option to create own civ. This way we dont have to eliminate existing civs. This way each person can add a civ(s) if they feel like they deserved it but was left off.

They'd make the game with 10(or how ever many) of the civs blank. There would be no obligation to fill these in as they game would(should) have ample civs to play with.

Daniel
Yakopepper is offline  
Old October 16, 1999, 20:51   #41
MarkG
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
final results(877 votes)

Number of Civs in a game?










More than 32 385 / 43%
Up to 32 237 / 26%
Up to 16 183 / 20%
8 is enough... 70 / 7%
No opinion 12 / 1%


------------------
Markos, Apolyton Civilization Site

[This message has been edited by MarkG (edited October 16, 1999).]
 
Old December 26, 1999, 01:30   #42
S. Kroeze
Prince
 
S. Kroeze's Avatar
 
Local Time: 00:23
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: the Hague, the Netherlands, Old Europe
Posts: 370
Because there are many intelligent remarks made in this thread (especially by Matthew and Maniac) I think it should be brought to everyone's attention again. It's a pity it deteriorates later to the level of Atahualpa not liking the Incas and other people disagreeing. (Why does he call himself Atahualpa one may ask?).
I begin with a quotation:

"First of all, what major civ did not start out as a minor civ? At the time the small city of Rome liberated itself from Eutruscan rule around 500 BC I would say that it was a pretty minor entity compared to China, the Persian empire, or even some of the Greek confederations.
Want realism? Make it possible for a small, insignificant city state to become a major power in 200 years and the greatest economic power in history, up to that point, in another 200. Make it possible for a few tiny cities on a far off continent to revolt from their mother country and then in 150 years time dwarf that mother country in population and industrial might, all without conquering any major population centers. Make it possible for a minor civ confined to an island chain the size of California with few natural resources, still in the iron age when the major powers are for the most part quite industrialized, to in 50 years be able to compete with those industrialized civs militarily (Russo Japanese war, Japanese won), 50 years later conquer half the pacific, get throttled and bombed back into the stone age, and in another 40 years have the 2nd largest economy on earth and be #2 in industrial output, all without (succesfully, anyway) expanding beyond its original borders or skyrocketing in population.

Actually the story of a minor civ becoming a great power, sometimes even overshadowing older civilizations, is the rule, not the exception. Of course this degree of realism would be hard to impliment, so for practical purposes we should probably content ourselves with the myriad of China type eternal civs that we have gotten so far. (Yes, I know that some of these success stories can be achieved against the AI (artificial idiot), but not likely in MP." (Matthew)

So the important question: how to limit the research progress of large populous empires and favouring small, perfectionistic civilizations should be considered again!

One intelligent suggestion I want to support: the education level of a civilization. What percentage of people in a civilization actually have mastered the art of reading and writing? As we all know it will only increase very slowly with time. My suggestion for the moment is the following:
Only that amount of research points counts as positive that's proportionate with your current level of skilled workers.

Another idea: make exchange of knowledge more dependent on trade and other contacts. In Civilization and SMAC you can trade knowledge with civilizations while you don't even know their geographical position and have never established an embassy. This should be forbidden: without an embassy and regular trade contacts cultural exchange just becomes impossible. Neither should it be possible to develop Flight without having knowledge of the Wheel.

I know this problem is recorded many times before; we should all of us work on a solution!
I cant resist the temptation of including a historically correct list of the Great Civilizations of History. Most people identify a civilization with a nationality; I'm not against a national element in the game, but everyone should understand the enormous difference separating these concepts.
1. Sumerian/Babylonian
2. Egyptian
3. Indus/Dravidian
4. Chinese
5. Greek
6. Roman
7. Mayan/Meso-American
8. Inca/Andes
9. Byzantine/Orthodox
10. Latin/Catholic
11. Islamic/Near Eastern
12. Germanic/Protestant
13. Russian/Slav
14. Indian/Hindu
15. Japanese
16. Tibetan
17. South East Asian
18. sub-Saharan civilization??

Of course every list is open to debate. As one should acknowledge its religion that identifies all civilizations! One could still argue the existence of a Celtic, Persian or Turkish civilization. But that would be the limit. McNeill, the authority who more or less introduced the concept of civilization in historiography, recognizes even less: Mesopotamian, Egyptian, merging into Near Eastern, (3)Indian, Chinese, Japanese and (6)Western, which he only divides into Greek Orthodox and Latin Catholic.
Those asking for Hunnish or Mongol civilazations absolutely miss the point: those were the barbarians!
S. Kroeze is offline  
Old December 26, 1999, 16:43   #43
The Joker
Prince
 
Local Time: 02:23
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark
Posts: 505
And so we meet again, Kroeze!

This is all a part of our huge "let's make it so large civs aren't stronger than smaller ones" project. Perhabs the most important breakthrough Civ3 should include.

Having read this post I think that Maniac's 3 ideas (libraries needed for real research (of cause inventing the wheel or ceremonial burial wouldn't be tough without libraries, but inventing stealth or superconducter should require it), advances spread slowly across your empire (with a speed of maybe 3 squares per turn, roads and railroads would increase this speed) and that a prerequisite advance is required for a city to work on the following)) combined with your idea that a part of your research would have to be used for education to preserve advances, with this amount raised with a larger population should do the trick.

Maniac's ideas wouldn't work in modern times (most cities are developed and railroads make research spread instant), but there your idea would be even more important as your population grow with time.

Another idea I would like is more advances. So many that you as one civ could never discover them all. This would encurage research trade and would make it neccesary for you to be friend/allied with at least a few civs. It would also solve the China-stagnation-problem: If you are the only developed civ in your area you have noone to trade research with and so you stagnate, unlike those small civs with lots of neighbors.

For your civ list I am a bit frightened about criticising it due to your enormous historical knowledge, but here goes:

What is the Indus/Dravidian civ?

I would say that the Azecs were mightier than the Mayans.

I would like a Civ3 with about 20 civs at first. As time goes these would split up (with reasonable names for the new civs created: A German fragment would be called the Brittish or the Vikings, a Viking splitoff would be called the Danes or the Swedish, a Brittish splitoff would be called the Americans or the Canadians etc. These names would not really matter gamewise, but would be extra spice) and civs would emerge at unpopulated parts of the world. In modern times there could be perhabs 50-60 civs, most of these being small ones with just 3 or 4 cities, and as many colonies and protectorates.
The Joker is offline  
Old December 26, 1999, 22:47   #44
Hanuman
Settler
 
Local Time: 00:23
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: LA, CA, USA
Posts: 26
I agree that there shouldn't be 2 categories of civ, major & minor. Minor civs will become (or stay) minor for no other reason than that they do not progress along with the civs which become major; they do not have to be designated as such and limited by the designation. And historically everything is in flux anyway. Besides, you shouldn't be able to take it for granted that some civ will never rise in power and become a threat to you. The Greeks, Carthaginians, or Egyptians weren't able to take for granted that the Romans would remain minor. One way to ensure that some civs stay minor (if that's what you want) would be to have an option that allows civs (including the player's civ) to start at different times (you could set a date or let it be random). So the Egyptians and Sumerians/Babylonians/Akkadians start earlier than the Greeks and the Greeks earlier than the Romans, and so on. I don't mean something like the advanced start option in Civ II; rather, let the game play itself out as usual, then, at the appropriate time, poof, a settler appears and founds Rome. If you found a city where Rome is supposed to be, perhaps Rome should never appear at all, or perhaps it appears somewhere else (another option?). This would make a big difference for a civ appearing some 4000 years later than the earliest civs, as the Aztecs did. They won't stand much of a chance, no matter how brilliant their achievements in the short span of their existence. It would, however, make a nice challenge for players who find the game too easy to start off that late and see how they can do.

There should, though, be nomads and pastoralists, who would be like barbarians except that they wouldn't appear out of nowhere but would always be there, carrying on in their stone-age ways. Perhaps this is more like what is meant by 'minor civ'? Call it a marginal civ, maybe. Anyway, these might have their own (simplified) personalities: peaceful, warlike, neutral. You can either gradually nudge them, or forcible push them, onto less prodctive lands (reservations, perhaps, or just poor land) or wipe them out (or both). You would do this by talking to them like any civ and demanding that they withdraw. Maybe they can also join your civ (adding to the population of your nearest city, if the city is within a certain number of squares). It would all depend on your personality and theirs. I think this scheme could replace goody huts (goody huts must die!), which conceptually represent sort of the same thing-- minor barbarians/indigenous populations who attack you, join you, give you bribes/gifts (in the form of gold), whatever. As long as they don't turn into cities. I hate coming across, for example, Bombay out in the middle of Siberia-- when all the rest of India is in southern Asia-- all because Gandhi discovered an advanced tribe there. That's not how civs expand, historically. And then from the player's end, I hate finding an advanced tribe in possibly hostile territory, far away from my armies. It's annoying and stupid, and anyway it doesn't make sense; if the people in the goody hut were so advanced, why aren't they a civ?

Also, I vote for playing as many civs as you want at the same time (as long as there are enough colors-- and please, make sure colors are distinct even to those of us who suffer from common varieties of color blindness! Maybe have a color wheel?), with the option to limit the number of civs if you want. And you should be able to play whatever civs you want at the same time without the hassle of editing rules.txt! It's ridiculous that you can't play Greeks and Carthaginians at the same time. Maybe you want to play only a certain subset of civs-- all ancient civs, e.g. You should be able to do so through the interface.

Another thing to consider, besides history, is gameplay. There need to be more civs in the Americas and in Africa and southeast Asia, if only for the sake of balance. If for no other reason (which is not to say there aren't other reasons), I'd like to see Canadians & Australians admitted into the roster of Civs. Again, there should be the option to pick exactly which civs you want in a game, so if you don't like them you can choose not to pick them.
[This message has been edited by Hanuman (edited December 27, 1999).]
Hanuman is offline  
Old December 28, 1999, 23:09   #45
S. Kroeze
Prince
 
S. Kroeze's Avatar
 
Local Time: 00:23
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: the Hague, the Netherlands, Old Europe
Posts: 370
Please don't exaggerate about my knowledge of history. It's certainly true that I have at least some basic understanding of history, but there are many subjects (African or American history for instance) about which my knowledge is very superficial. And the twentieth century certainly isn't my specialism, which you will probably have noticed! One should always remain critical.

A quotation about the Indus civilization:

"There followed a long period of slow evolution, which gathered momentum towards the end and resulted in the spectacular Indus Valley Civilization (or the Harappa Culture as it has been more recently named) in c. 2300 B.C. The antecedents of the Harappa Culture are the village sites of the Baluchistan hills - the Nal Culture, and of the Makran coast to the west of the Indus delta - the Kulli Culture, and certain of the village communities along the rivers in Rajasthan and Punjab.

The Harappa Culture was the most extensive of the ancient civilizations in area, including not only the Indus plain (the Punjab and Sind), bus also northern Rajasthan and the region of Kathiawar in western India. It was essentially a city culture and among the centres of authority were the two cities of Mohenjo-daro and Harappa. These were maintained from the surplus produce of the country, judging by the elaborately constructed granaries found in both cities. Another source of income was the profit from a flourishing trade both within the northern and western areas of the sub-continent and between the people of this culture and those of the Persian Gulf and Mesopotamia.

The cities show evidence of an advanced sense of civic planning and organization. Each city was divided into the citadel area, where the essential institutions of civic and religious life were located, and the residential area where the urban population lived.

Among the many remains of the Harappa culture perhaps the most puzzling are the seals - small, flat, square, or rectangular objects with a pictorial motif, human or animal, and an inscription. The latter remains undeciphered and holds promise of interesting information when it can be finally read.

By 1700 B.C. the Harappa culture had declined and the migration of the Indo-Aryans from Iran in about 1500 B.C. introduced new features into the cultural background of north-western India.

There is evidence of the Proto-Australoid, the Mediterranean, Alpine, and Mongoloid in the skeletal remains at Harappan sites. The Mediterranean race is generally associated with Dravidian culture.
The last to come were the people commonly referred to as Aryans. Aryan is in fact a linguistic term indicating a speech-group of Indo-European origin, and is not an ethnic term."
(R. Thapar: A History of India")

As you will surely notice this civilization meets all criteria of a true civilization: agriculture, cities, writing and organized religion! Of course some consider it only a forerunner of the Indian/Brahmanic civilization. Because of the great gap in time -roughly a millennium- I would argue otherwise.

The Maya and Aztecs were in my opinion both part of one Meso-American civilization. It is true that the Aztecs were more powerfull. Their relationship is more or less the same as between Babylonians and Assyrians: the first created a civilization (actually the Sumerians did), the second were a nation of warriors who conquered most of the Middle East but were culturally nothing but a continuation of their betters. And of course the Babylonians survived longer. I wonder what would have happened to the Aztecs if the Spanish hadn't arrived.
But such conclusions will always be debatable.

If there are nomads/pastoralists - which I would applaud- they should be aggressive, disagreeable and military superior. They will be tamed by cultural integration.

An idea that I strongly support is that of a later starting date of some civilizations, especially to frustrate the advanced player. Order of appearance doesn't need to follow history as it happened. Give the poor Incas their chance!

Since the game will create every game an other map there is no need of Australians or Canadians; what argument would justify calling them a civilization? Someone pleaded for more African, American and Asian civilizations. Adding Europeans will not solve such a problem! Adding Sioux, Aboriginals and Zulus or Ethiopians would do, though none of these people could write. Australia and Canada are just ex-British (-French) colonies, while the English are only a minor nation of the many branches of Western Christianity; even if they may have ruled the waves!
S. Kroeze is offline  
Old December 31, 1999, 10:06   #46
The Joker
Prince
 
Local Time: 02:23
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark
Posts: 505
I don't think there should be any structural difference at all between major and minor civs. I would like a game with civs in all sizes, from the huge imperial ones with 60 cities which would propably only excist in a few centuries to the medium ones with 15-20 cities to the small ones with just 5 cities. If nationality and protectorates are included it would truly take diplomacy - even civgaming as a whole - to a new level. All this does, however, require a FAR BETTER AI. The one in Civ2 really sucked. The one in SMAC were better (it was actually able to combine it's forces into one huge attack in stead of just moving them to certain death one by one), but much is needed still. Most important is propably to make the AI know how powerful it is. I have played games where I have conquored all but 5 cities of a faction, and it still wanted an advance from me to end the war. And the civ usually doesn't give up totally before it has lost all but 1 city. This really need to be changed. After all, Germany had lost no cities at all in WW1, and still it surrendered completely. The AI should also be satisfied being a protectorate, if it could see that another civ could conquor it, or if it's nationality was simply like that of another civ. It could even ask you to become a protectorate. The civs should also act this way towards each other, or it wouldn't work. Another thing is that smaller civs should be able to allie or even unite into a confederation if they are being surpressed by one or more large civs. A horror scenario for a large civ could be the unification of all the small civs in the world!

I like the possibility to have as many civs as you would like. You could say that you wanted perhabs 10 civs at first and then 20 starting randomly as time goes. Or you could say that the number of civs starting along the way could be random, so an unhapitated island would get some civ on it if not colonized. With modern time computers it shouldn't be a problem controlling this large amount of independant AI's.

Thanks for the explanation of the Indus civ. I hadn't even heard about it before.

BTW I have read that some historians think that the Azecs would propably have ended up destroying them selves if the Spanish hadn't come. They were really obsessed with death, and sacrificed loads of people every day to the sun.

For the civs started later I don't think they should be completely useless. I think that if an advance you're researching has been discovered by a civ you have contact with it should be significantly faster to research. Maybe 10% cheaper if 1 civ has found it, 20% if 2 has down to perhabs 70-80% if 20 civs have discovered it. This tyoe of research spillover would be historically correct (no civ is 1000s of years behind in research, except for civs with no contact with others) and would add to the excitement of the game as the strongest civ at one point could be passed by another one.

I also think civs should be able to start with some advances. For instance if a civ has broken off from another one (it should be possible that 10,000 people leave one of your cities and found a new civ somewhere in the world) it shouldn't start off at ground zero. It would get most of the technologies known in the city it broke off from.

Well, HAPPY NEW YEAR EVEYBODY!!!

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

"If New Zealand can survive the Y2K so can we."
- unknown
The Joker is offline  
Old December 31, 1999, 21:24   #47
Hodad
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
The more the merrier!
I'd say 20 is enough.
 
Old January 3, 2000, 18:33   #48
stodlum
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
There should be loads of civs! It worked well in Call To Power! If people don't want to play the Welsh, there can be an option to turn certain ones off.

 
Old January 3, 2000, 18:33   #49
stodlum
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
There should be loads of civs! It worked well in Call To Power! If people don't want to play the Welsh, there can be an option to turn certain ones off.

 
Old January 4, 2000, 15:38   #50
Darkstar
Prince
 
Darkstar's Avatar
 
Local Time: 18:23
Local Date: October 30, 2010
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Huntsville, AL, USA
Posts: 413
I think there should be ONE at the start. Mine.

Then others evolve, spring up, align, grow, conquer, die...

That would be cool.

No limits on the number of civs in the game. A civ will be MINOR in the PLAYER'S mind. Or Major.

Civil Wars, rebellions, new outpost of new civs (taking along their old nations techs (at least, majority)), etc.

Knowing that there are X amount in the game, and when I have to smash Licoln's America because we are on the same land (and I want his's shares), that the Chinese will suddenly pop up is boring.

-Darkstarr
Darkstar is offline  
Old January 26, 2000, 19:07   #51
S. Kroeze
Prince
 
S. Kroeze's Avatar
 
Local Time: 00:23
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: the Hague, the Netherlands, Old Europe
Posts: 370
The whole issue of major and/or minor civs would indeed be academic when the AI would understand its relative strength or weakness. Survival should come first for most smaller civilizations; but as a result there would be a real difference in behaviour between the great and the minor powers.

I still think my list of 18 civilizations is great. God beware us for Hunnic, Mongolian and Australian civilizations!
S. Kroeze is offline  
Old January 27, 2000, 08:33   #52
Sikander
King
 
Sikander's Avatar
 
Local Time: 17:23
Local Date: October 30, 2010
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Boulder, Colorado, United Snakes of America
Posts: 1,417
Well, this has been quite a juicy thread.

To start with, I am one of those people who wants to see zillions of tiny Civs/Peoples at the beginning of the game. Civs would be defined as peoples who were agricultural / sedentary in nature. Other peoples would be pastoralists, as mentioned above, who would tend to have no respect for your borders, and be militarily quite capable, as well as mobile. They could become Civilized by conquering a Civ, and going over to a more sedentary way of life. The rest of the map would be filled with hunter/gatherers, who would not necessarily have too much effect on the game.

I would like to see the game work in various scales as time marches on. The first cities would be built on a single square, and draw resources potentially from the surrounding 8 squares. This scale of development would be called a city, and your Civ could have several, though the inefficiency and potential for civil war would increase as you added more of them. A city would be limited to building only the most basic level buildings, such as a Granary, a Temple, a Barracks, a Marketplace and a Library. Cities would be able to produce single military units as well.

At some point your Civ would develop the (Governmental) technology and the infrastructure to advance to a larger scale government. This form of governent would be called a Kingdom (I'm sure there is a better term), and would rule over an area of 9 by 9 squares, or the area which it would have taken 9 cities to rule previously. You could not merely throw a Kingdom up in the wilderness, but would have to establish it by building a palace in an existing city. A Kingdom would eliminate a good deal of the inefficiency and potential for civil war that nine seperate cities would have, and additionally would be able to construct higher level buildings, such as Banks, WoWs, Universities etc.

Kingdoms would be able to create a new unit, the Army, which would be an administrative unit which would be able to stack up to 9 units together and use them in a coherent manner. While units would only deny the square that they occupied from the enemy, an Army would in effect occupy 9 squares (like a ZOC), and would be engaged by any attempt to move adjacent to it. A stacked combat would then occur, perhaps like MoM on a seperate tactical map.

Another scale of government / military could exist above the Kingdom / Army, but the ideas already outlined should suffice to describe it. The advantages to this system of varying scales are several. Firstly, they tend to more realisticly portray the events occurring in the game. Secondly, as your empire expands, they would cut down on the amount of micromanagement necessary. They would also tend to limit empires to more historically tenable areas, through limitations imposed by civil wars and rebellions. One political unit is relatively safe from these sort of events, while each additional unit creates a much more difficult management problem, up to the point where a vast empire is continually racked with civil conflict, and must let go of certain areas, or quickly upgrade it's system of government.

On to other subjects. I really agree with the point made previously regarding food and specialists. Food is really underrated in the current Civ game, at the expense of trade. I would like to see a much more extensive use made of specialists, and have more types of specialists available. I would use a more sophisticated city screen to assign the various groups of people to their jobs. (Like Colonization) Here is a partial list of what I have in mind:

Farmers: Assigned to a square in the city radius to grow food. No prerequisite.

Woodcutters / Miners: Assigned to a square to harvest resources. No prerequisite. Can work the same square as a farmer if the square also produces resources.

Craftsmen: Assigned to the build queue area initially (later to factories etc.) Converts resources into shields. No prerequisite.

Priests: Assigned to the temple. They produce a little bit of science, and the first priest causes one unhappy person to be content. (Up to two priests with Mysticism) Prerequisite, a temple.

Soldiers: Assigned to a Barracks. A segment of the population sufficient in size to man and maintain one (professional) military unit, provided that the requisite weaponry has been produced initially.

Sages: Assigned to Libraries. Produces knowledge.

Merchants: Assigned to Marketplaces. Produce taxes and luxeries, and increase productivity of commodities through superior (market based) distribution.

Bureacrats / Magistrates: Assigned to Palace / Courthouses. Produce tax revenue, and reduce corruption (inefficiency).

Slaves / Construction Teams: Assigned to squares within the city radius to improve the terrain by building the usual mines, roads, irrigation, fortifications etc.

Anyway, you get the idea. Buildings don't provide anything (except upkeep costs) on their own, they have to be manned by specialists. The more advanced the type of building, the more productive the specialist working there. Population working squares advances in productivity based on tech, as well as the presence of certain specialists.

The way to carry all of this out is to reduce the amount of food necessary to support one person to 1. This will double the growth rate, and quickly provide the population necessary to man the buildings in the city.

Something I really liked from SMAC was the idea of supply crawlers. These are units dedicated to the extraction and transportation of a commodity from an area outside of a city radius. I would limit them by forcing the unit to be built like a settler (ie it costs one population). There productivity would be divided by the number of turns it would take for them to move back to the city from there production square. Thus, your fishing fleets could take advantage of that fish square just outside of the city radius, at least until they were destroyed by an enemy fleet, or your city was so closely blockaded that their productivity dropped to zero.

Finally, the trade system in Civ needs to be totally revamped, including trade within a city (trade arrows), between cities of the same Civ, and between different Civs. How many times have you been frustrated by having a city which produces a ton of food, but no shields next to a city which has the opposite problem. Even though these cities might be linked by a RR, there is no way to conduct the obvious exchange in Civ II. (Even producing a food caravan takes forever in a city with no production).

I would like to have a system where you can instantly trade commodities between your own cities. My idea would work something like this. You would have two commodities, Food and Resources. Cities could trade their surplus on a one for one basis, minus inefficiency and subject to the same distance modifiers as the crawler. Caravan units, and / or ships would be required to conduct the trade. When the railroad is built, it will greatly increase the scope of trade potential, allowing workers to only utilize the most efficient squares in their city radius.

If trade between two cities is not efficient enough, or if an oversupply of one commodity is not matched by another, commodities could be sold at the rate of 2 for one gold, or bought at the rate of 2 gold for 1 commodity. Thus, it would be better to trade whenever possible, but cash can be used when necessary.

Trade between Civilizations could be on this model (eg Egypt and Byblos) or could be more akin to trading manufactured goods and luxury items. (Like Civ seems to do now) Both Civs would likely benefit from this sort of trade in terms of money, luxuries, and contact with each other. (Diplomacy and Science). Well, that is more than enough for now.
Sikander is offline  
Old February 1, 2000, 20:28   #53
Hero Caesar
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
I like the idea of major/minor civs, but I'm still having difficulty seeing how it'll be practical. Assuming Civ 3 ships out with only major civs, I'd settle for around 15-20 civs. I like the idea posted earlier about having 10 or so 'slots' to have custom civs in. I'm Australian, but it owuldn't bother me if no Australian civ is in there (never played them in CTP anyway). I personally prefer the ancient civs as opposed to the modern ones (that's just me ).
 
Old February 3, 2000, 03:41   #54
Youngsun
Prince
 
Local Time: 00:23
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Darwin,NT,Australia
Posts: 562
S.Kroeze: Hi! That's very nice list you offered to us. I believe some adjustment is needed in the ranking(Personlly).

7.Latin
8.Byzantine
9.Islamic
10.Indian
11.Mayan
12.Inca
13.Russian
14.Germanic
15.Korean
16.Japanese
17.Anglo-Saxon(Arguable?)
18.Southeast Asian

Latin culture is so IMPORTANT to be in No.10
Byzantine culture,too
Islamic->Do not ignore them!
Indian-You gave too low rank for this civ
Mayan desrves in No.11
Inca deserves in No.12
Russian Civ's influence is great!
Germanic Civ's influence, too. Especially in European languages.
Korean-How come you miss this hermit-Kingdom?
Japanese-Why after Korean? Long time ago, they were much weaker and smaller than Koreans(bC450~)
Anglo-Saxon Why them? For some, they maybe barbarian civ. But since you included Germanic Civ, They deserves to be in the ranking(disagree?)
Southeast Asian is more important than Sub-saharan.

About the ranking No.1~6, I have no objection.
Youngsun is offline  
Old February 5, 2000, 18:42   #55
S. Kroeze
Prince
 
S. Kroeze's Avatar
 
Local Time: 00:23
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: the Hague, the Netherlands, Old Europe
Posts: 370
Dear Youngsun,

I think its important to stress the point that it was never my intention to rank civilizations. I dont believe in the concept of a ranking of civilizations. I started -as you probably noticed- with the oldest and perhaps most hallowed, the Sumerian, and continued first in chronological order, gradually abandoning this "logical" order and just considered the map from west to east. I didn't try to pass judgment.
Perhaps I should have continued in chronological order. In that case the Indian civilization, starting ~800BC, should be mentioned much earlier than the Latin/Catholic civilization, which in my opinion didn't get off before the rise of the papacy and the decline of Byzantine influence in the west(~800AD?). Byzantine is certainly older.

I have to admit that my knowledge of Korean history is practically non-existent. Most historians pondering the subject of these civilizations, McNeill, but also Fairbank and Reischauer, treat them as an offshoot of the Chinese civilization, like the Vietnamese too. The Japanese, about whom I happen to know a lot more, started also as a branch of the Chinese civilization, but developed from the tenth century in a totally different direction. Even McNeill, who is much more selective in discerning only seven individual civilizations, gives them that much credit.
It was not my intention to slight the Koreans. Did they develop a religion of their own making? Is their culture radically different from the Chinese?

The Anglo-Saxons were a Germanic people. Its no accident the English turned protestant; the Irish didn't!
S. Kroeze is offline  
Old February 5, 2000, 19:18   #56
Titos
Warlord
 
Local Time: 00:23
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Bronxville, NY, USA
Posts: 123
As many as possible
Titos is offline  
Old February 6, 2000, 02:44   #57
Youngsun
Prince
 
Local Time: 00:23
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Darwin,NT,Australia
Posts: 562
Dear S.Kroeze

First of all,I should have known better about the way you made the list so I will withdraw that ranking stuff anyway.

About Japan & Korea:
Much of the current commonality among East Asian countries is due to the extraordinary influence of the early-developing Chinese civilisation on its eastern neighbours,particulary the diffusion of Buddhism and Confucianism into the early states. This is not to say,however,that the later societies growing out of these states were carbon copies of China and lacked their own unique natures. One of the reasons for Japan's ascendancy in the modern world is her unusual development of a complex merchant economy and middle-class culture during the pre-modern Edo period(1603_1868). In fact, Japan's historical relations with the outside world can be mapped in pendulum-like swings from active solicitation and absorption of foreign culture to periods of isolationist incubation leading to the development of a rish and infinitely refined native culture. Such isolationism also took periodically on the Korean Peninsula, with the pre-modern Choson period(1392-1910)being popularly called the 'Hermit Kingdom'. Only in recent times(1868-World War I and during the post-World War II period) has Japan looked to the West during her phrases of foreign receptivity. Before this, China was natural magnet for Japan,Korea and all other peoples of eastern Eurasia.

The crucial period of active importation and adoption of Chinese ways occured in the 6th and 7th centuries. The contemporaneous goverments of the Korean Peninsula(Shilla) and the Japanese Islands(Yamato) both looked at the time to the sui and Tang Dynasties on the China Mainland for administrative system, and after which they could model their new states. Among the items borrowed were the grided city plan of the Tang capital, the regional admistrative system, and code of law.

One fallacy is to think that such countries as 'China', 'Korea' and 'Japan' existed in those earlier periods. They did not. The East Asian landscape was much more politically and culturally varied especially in China mainland and Manchuria and Korean Pennisula. During the Late Zhou, seven states emerged as major rivals:Qi,Qin,Yan,Qiao,Wei,Han and Chu. The period ended with the Qin's conquest of the others in 221 BC and the proclamation of a united Qin Dynasty(221-206BC).Korean culture and infulence existed in Manchuria and the Pennisula. After the destruction of old Choson(2333BC-108BC)by the army of Han Dynasty,the Koreans got splited into several kingdoms.(Puyo,Koguryo,Okcho,Tongye,Samhan) and Koguryo conquered all kingdoms except Samhan and controlled Whole Manchuria and Northern Korea. Later Packje and Shilla emerged from Samhan then it became known as Korean version of three kingdoms(Three kindoms in China:Wei,Wu and Shu)

Another fallacy is to think that the flow of cultural influence was all unidirectional from China Mainland eastwards to the Peninsula and Islands. It was not. constant interaction linked smaller areas of East Asia, and within those spheres, contact and exchange was multi-directional. Moreover, there was considerable influence thoroughout the ages from Eurasian steppe region and from Southeast Asia.

Finally, it is wrong to think that all areas were constantly in touch so that development occurred in concert. It did not. Just as in historical times, there were periods of intense interaction and periods of relative isolation between these geographical areas(China,Korea and Japan). By treating the cultural histories of the modern East Asian countries together,it is possible to gain a sense of the mosaic of early peoples,cultures and polities which cross-cut what are now modern national boundaries. Although each East Asian nation today claims portions of the mosaic for its individual history and interest, the ancient entities belong to no one and nothing other than their own time and place. Therefore it is better to be echewed to say either Japanese and Korean civilisations are Offshoots of Chinese Civilisation.

Thanks.


[This message has been edited by Youngsun (edited February 13, 2000).]
Youngsun is offline  
Old April 18, 2000, 08:39   #58
S. Kroeze
Prince
 
S. Kroeze's Avatar
 
Local Time: 00:23
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: the Hague, the Netherlands, Old Europe
Posts: 370
quote:

Originally posted by S. Kroeze on 12-25-1999 12:30 PM
I cant resist the temptation of including a historically correct list of the Great Civilizations of History. Most people identify a civilization with a nationality; I'm not against a national element in the game, but everyone should understand the enormous difference separating these concepts.
1. Sumerian/Babylonian
2. Egyptian
3. Indus/Dravidian
4. Chinese
5. Greek
6. Roman
7. Mayan/Meso-American
8. Inca/Andes
9. Byzantine/Orthodox
10. Latin/Catholic
11. Islamic/Near Eastern
12. Germanic/Protestant
13. Russian/Slav
14. Indian/Hindu
15. Japanese
16. Tibetan
17. South East Asian
18. sub-Saharan civilization??

Of course every list is open to debate. As one should acknowledge its religion that identifies all civilizations! One could still argue the existence of a Celtic, Persian or Turkish civilization. But that would be the limit. McNeill, the authority who more or less introduced the concept of civilization in historiography, recognizes even less: Mesopotamian, Egyptian, merging into Near Eastern, (3)Indian, Chinese, Japanese and (6)Western, which he only divides into Greek Orthodox and Latin Catholic.
Those asking for Hunnish or Mongol civilizations absolutely miss the point: those were the barbarians!


And yet another thread about which civs to include!
I'm still not convinced by the Koreans. In all these historical surveys there is no trace of a unique Korean religion or culture.

The ICS problem is also analysed in this thread. In my opinion in an intelligent way!
S. Kroeze is offline  
Old April 20, 2000, 00:44   #59
Dr Strangelove
Apolytoners Hall of Fame
Emperor
 
Dr Strangelove's Avatar
 
Local Time: 20:23
Local Date: October 30, 2010
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: USA
Posts: 3,197
I wouldn't mind having the option to have up to 32 civs, provided that it doesn't overwhelm the AI and make the game crash. This is something to consider; CTP, with its animations and multilayered maps, and extra civs was crash-o-matic city! The creators should research the stability of the build with all those extra civs to run.
I have a suggestion with regards to minor civs. By the time civilization appeared, humans had already spread all over the earth. Civilizations geberally expanded into areas already inhabited by other people, so increase the density of goody huts, and make them all inhabited. Upon advancing onto a populated hut, there would be several possible outcomes: (1)The natives surrender, and (a)found a city on the spot, (b)you ask them to move, and they do so peacefully, or (c)you ask them to move and they revolt. (2)The natives fight back, and (a)they lose and acquiesce to your commands, or (b) they win and become barbarians. (3)The natives ask for a bribe to join your tribe, if you don't pay they fight. (4)If slavery is incorporated into the game, you may attempt to enslave the natives, whereupon they may or may not fight. (5)The natives escape, and settle elsewhere or come back as barbarians.

Some goody huts would include money, advances, and etc. in addition to population. The tech level of the goody huts would increase according to the tech levels of any nearby civ. If there aren't any nearby civs, then the tech level is either basic, or about the level of the lowest civ on the map. Goody huts could have city improvements appropriate for their tech level, thereby acting like minor civs. You could even let them have names, and give them a chance to revolt until they have been assimilated after x number of turns.
Dr Strangelove is offline  
Old April 20, 2000, 02:19   #60
MidKnight Lament
King
 
MidKnight Lament's Avatar
 
Local Time: 10:23
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 1,235
We've already been told than minor civs are in. I'm guessing that part of the reason they're in is to represent things like this.

Some mp people don't like goody huts anyway.

- MKL
MidKnight Lament is offline  
 

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 20:23.


Design by Vjacheslav Trushkin, color scheme by ColorizeIt!.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Apolyton Civilization Site | Copyright © The Apolyton Team