More on Civs... More Specifity

I think that each civ should have its own directory with its own unique unit graphics and names, techs, flags, leaders and maybe even rules...

This way we won't have Arab (or Zulu!)Crusaders fighting against the English or French..

Also, each civ should have a country name.. This way, you would negotiate with Britain or declare war on, or denounce, Phoenicia, instead of The British and Phoenecians..
This name could change with change in govt. Russia could become the Soviet Union, India into the Republic of India etc..

------------------
-Shiva
Email: shiva@mailops.com
Web: http://www.crosswinds.net/india/~shiva
ICQ: 17719980

[Par4]

Flags yaaaaayyyyyyyy!!! Civ3 must have Flags!!!!!

------------------
I use this email
(stupid cant use hotmail)
gamma_par4@hotmail.com
Don't ask for golf tips
Your game will get worse
HappyLand

Instead of saying that zulus will never be christians with Crusaders, I would like to choose (and change) religion, culture, and other things. Kinda the way you choose your city style (Bronze Age Monolith, Far East Pavillian, etc.) That way you're not Christian just b/c you're Romans or Shinto because you're Japanese...etc.

------------------
~~~I am who I am, who I am - but who am I?~~~
"Oh, they have the Internet on computers now!"

OK, but even if you change your religion, you should still have units, techs, flags, leaders, governments unique to your civ..

------------------
-Shiva
Email: shiva@mailops.com
Web: http://www.crosswinds.net/india/~shiva
ICQ: 17719980

Definitely, maybe instead of a directory for each civ, a directory for each culture. Than you can choose your culture as an option that fits in with your city style.

------------------
~~~I am who I am, who I am - but who am I?~~~
"Oh, they have the Internet on computers now!"

Hmm.. culture.. Perhaps..

Yes, yes.. There should be directories for each culture, and then each civ should assigned to a culture.. The 'culture' files should serve as the base, while if any modifications are needed, the data in the 'civ' files would be used.. The directory structure could be like this:-

\Civ3\Culture\European
\Civ3\Culture\EastAsian
\Civ3\Culture\African
etc.
and
Civ3\Civs\Romans

and so on..


But what's important is that the civ data should be different and should overrule the culture data if there is a conflict..
One more thing:- Firaxis better not try and make the Indian civ Chinese: Indian buildings do NOT look like Chinese pagodas..


------------------
-Shiva
Email: shiva@mailops.com
Web: http://www.crosswinds.net/india/~shiva
ICQ: 17719980

[Grier]

I agree in principle to most of the above ideas.

However, I would like to issue a word of caution. If each civs units all look different then it may be hard to work out which units which (is that a Chinese Phalanx or Warriors?). This could be a good thing, and each civ could have a different range of units and a varying tech-tree.

There is a whole can of worms in this area, some people would argue that you end up be forced to repeat history rather then recreating it. IMO the more variation the better.

[MidKnight Lament]

Grier - very true. They should certainly be customisable to have different units for different civs, but I don't think I want them for the main game. It could become hard to distinguish units, and it could also start to drain on the memory. It'd be very handy for scenarios though.

The forced history point is a good one too, and one that I heartily agree with. I want to shape my own civ, not have it pre-defined to me.

- MKL

[Father Beast]

urrr.. wasn't this in the EC3 list, under "each civ should have its own folder"?
or didn't that one make it?
I thought it was a good idea and would be simple to implement.

[CornMaster]

quote: Originally posted by OrangeSfwr on 06-10-2000 11:12 PM Instead of saying that zulus will never be christians with Crusaders, I would like to choose (and change) religion, culture, and other things. Kinda the way you choose your city style (Bronze Age Monolith, Far East Pavillian, etc.) That way you're not Christian just b/c you're Romans or Shinto because you're Japanese...etc.

I just don't get the whole religion idea. It is unrealistic to expect an entire nation to change religion in one turn. If this was gradual (Like a government change) like 10 or 20 years (turns) it would make more sense. But also the entire nation wouldn't follow one religion. So if you could change your religion you should be able to see a percentage breakdown of your kingdom to see what religions are being practised.

The religion of you kingdom should also be influenced by near by kingdoms.

But what I really don't get is what is the benefit of having religions? Trade, or science, or military because if these are the only advantages then I would make the government models more developed because they offer the same rewards.

Anyway I'm going to look through the archives for posts on religion to see if I can get a better understanding of the topic. Please if I've made any mistakes, point them out to me.

I also dislike the "one civ - one religion" idea. And my quote wasn't suggesting that I do. I simply meant that you can't just say that Romans will have Crusaders that look like Christian crusaders, or that an Arab civ will have Crusaders that look like muslim crusaders. Otherwise we are just playing out the same history that humans have already experienced, and Civ should be different than that. Unfortunately the whole religion idea is going to have conflict so Firaxis will have to either bag the idea completely or not name the religions and have a percentage. For example: 67% of your citizens are of the A faith, 20% are of the B faith, and 13% are of the C faith. And than you could have missionaries (clerks?) that can alter that on a gradual scale in order to influence your citizens view toward another civ.

------------------
~~~I am who I am, who I am - but who am I?~~~
"Oh, they have the Internet on computers now!"

[CornMaster]

quote: Originally posted by OrangeSfwr on 06-25-2000 11:29 AM ..Unfortunately the whole religion idea is going to have conflict so Firaxis will have to either bag the idea completely or not name the religions and have a percentage. For example: 67% of your citizens are of the A faith, 20% are of the B faith, and 13% are of the C faith. And than you could have missionaries (clerks?) that can alter that on a gradual scale in order to influence your citizens view toward another civ.

That's what I meant to say and I think it would be a good idea but I also think it would raise too much fuss and would be too hard to implement. I would like to an all or nothing approach. Either this type of religion system or none at all.

[Tiberius]

quote: Firaxis will have to either bag the idea completely or not name the religions and have a percentage: 67% of your citizens are of the A faith, 20% are of the B faith, and 13% are of the C faith

I disagree with this approach. We are playing Civ, a game in which we are replaying the history of mankind, more or less. We have in the game real discoveries, government forms, units and so on. We have democracy, monarchy, philosophy, automobile, cavalry, etc. and not "A" goverment and "B" discoveries or "C" units. We should have real religions, too.

quote: I also dislike the "one civ - one religion" idea

How about one religion - many civs ?

And why shouldn't have an Arab civ Crusaders that look like muslim crusaders? You already have Crusaders that look like Crusaders! Just they are all the same. Why should we play reality just in some domains and fiction in others? And how could Firaxis decide what to make real and what fiction?

Anyway, tough job for (poor) Firaxis

Tiberius - I agree, I would love to see religions in Civ 3 but I'm just afraid that Firaxis will run into debate and problems. For example - leaving religions out, not accurately representing religions, we've had debate just in these threads about religion and how it's not fair to say one thing about a certain religion. So imagine what Firaxis would have to deal with from dissatisfied customers. That's why I thought a non-named religion system may work better yet still give the element of religion in the game. I think your argument for the crusaders just goes with the argument for folders for each civ or culture. This way it doesn't look ridiculous that you're fighting crusader units that look just like yours (what are you crusading for?!?) That's all. I'd like to hear what Firaxis has to say about Religion though, I have heard nothing yet. Does anyone have any info on this?

------------------
~~~I am who I am, who I am - but who am I?~~~
"Oh, they have the Internet on computers now!"

[St Leo]

Arab (or Zulu!)Crusaders

I have nothing against this - the only problem are the badly picked unit names, CivII was really messed in that respect. Come on, Cavalry?!? You have to be kidding.

------------------
St. Leo
http://ziggurat.sidgames.com/
http://www.sidgames.com/forums/

[UltraSonix]

quote: Arab (or Zulu!)Crusaders

So that's why the game should have different directories/rules files for each civ. So as well having civ-specific wonders (in another thread), the game can also have civ-specific units. The civ-specific units would probably not be different in specs to other units from other civs, but'll just have different names and graphix.

------------------
No, in Australia we don't live with kangaroos and koalas in our backyards...

Exactly, Ultrasonix..

One more thing on recreating vs. reliving history.. I'm no history student but thanks to civ I'm interested in ancient/medieval history.. And at least to some extent, I'd like to see a resemblance between history and the course of events in the game.. Perhaps civs could have a natural tendency toward a partivular religion or something..

------------------
-Shiva
Email: shiva@mailops.com
Web: http://www.crosswinds.net/india/~shiva
ICQ: 17719980

[UltraSonix]

Here we go again... I don't think that any names of religion should be mentioned in the game at all. It just doesn't seem neccessary to me. The game should be mainly civ vs civ not religion vs religion. If you want to do religion vs religion this should be done through gov types, eg fundamentalism.

------------------
No, in Australia we don't live with kangaroos and koalas in our backyards...

Is the only purpose for religion in Civ3 for Crusades and Jihads? Religion should be more demographic, statistic, etc. influencing policy, public attitudes and foreign relations..

And historical accuracy isn't just confined to religion.. I would like to see historically accurate units and stuff too..

------------------
-Shiva
Email: shiva@mailops.com
Web: http://www.crosswinds.net/india/~shiva
ICQ: 17719980

[Az]

OK ppl .. I c you get into a Religion discussion... how about my idea : let's first admit that every civ had it's own religion once . and every civ had it's own ethnic side once . right ? so I say ... in the begining of the game , you , as the deity, or more accurately , the spirit of the civilasation begin you play with a religion of your own , a tribe/civ of your own and a culture of your own . right ?
in the Religion menu you will be able to control your religious settings . I mean things like .... hmmp .... well let's say : does your religion try to persuade ppl to .... " join into the chosen " ....
or is it's purpose to close down , even become a cult-like closed society . ( ?! ) .

or will it go , with the soldiers of the towns it has "infested" and spread itself world-wide ? i think that this would also be a solution to the constant problem of Civs vanishing . even if your whole military is crushed and your city is conquered , your religion , and your cultures live on. during periods of crisis , a religion which is not closed-in-itself enough will split into a few religions . but in that religion menu you wont be able to change things drastically , coz as one said here before the religious proccesses take a whole lot of time .

P.S. communism and extreme ecologism are religions too , right ? oh boy , I haven't asked the question of " what is religion " , have I ?

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

In Communism there is no religion. But I very much like your idea Shiva. The best part is, the religions will be named after the civ instead of "christianity" "Judaism" etc. The only problem is, for example the German religion. What is it? Will it be cult like or expansionalist? Will you base it on "fact" or will it just be randomly given out. If so, each game or just by Firaxis for each tribe? Good ideas though!

------------------
~~~I am who I am, who I am - but who am I?~~~
"Oh, they have the Internet on computers now!"

[jeibel]

Are you sure Fireaxis don't want to risk that much? Sid included ideologies, which are as touchy as religions, in the first Civ... And wasn't kind in his picture... The game was made while USSR was crumbling, but he depicted TOTALITARIAN communism... He left out fascism, but perhaps because it was just a "modern" despotism... Remeber, in Civ you had Demo for peace and Desp for war. There are simple solutions to the religion naming problem: you just have a new adjective in your civ's attribute, which is you're religion name... For the default tribes it should either be historically based, or neutral (that is, you had -ism to the civ adjective: German -> Germanism; Roman -> Romanism... However in this way you mess up with historical terms). You can of course change it as you like. This way in the game mechanichs religion it is represented only in absract terms: monotheism, paganism, and so on. Simple.
Hi everyone.

[phunny pharmer]

Government is necessary for a game like Civ3. I don't think that religion is an absolute necessity...after all, Civ, Civ2, and SMAC didn't include it.

[MidKnight Lament]

You're right. Not an absolute neccessity. But we do want Civ 3 to take us to the next level, and Religion has played an important enough part of history to warrant its inclusion, I think. It has to be done right though. But it is possible to have a good religious model without going into murky territory.

- MKL

[Jordal]

I think that religion should be included. Diplomatic relations should be better with a civ that has the same religion as you.

[Ubersandwich]

I like the ideas in this thread, but i just can't see Firaxis touching this idea with a 10-foot pole - it is too potentially controversial. I do think a racial aspect could work. i.e. if you were playing the French and you Conquered the Chinese, you would have a large number of Chinese in your empire (depending on the size of the conquered nation) and that is a major concideration for an empire/nation: Canada's Quebec or even some Great Brittian's N. Ireland etc.

Whoa... Some good ideas on religion and stuff..

But what I was talking about was diff. graphics and rules for the diff. civs..

------------------
-Shiva
Email: shiva@mailops.com
Web: http://www.crosswinds.net/india/~shiva
ICQ: 17719980

[Par4]

FLAGS!!

Religion, well Communism there is no religion, but since true communism cannot be attained on a empirical(is this a word?) scale we'll use Stalinism as a guide. And think about it even if true communism was attained it's just waiting to become a stalinist police state. I mean you rely on the majority to make the decisions, well what's going to stop the majority from becoming a minority and ruling the people like slaves after all they were already used to the state making all the decisions.

Anyway Religion should only hinder relations if you have had bad relations for a long time.

Ok so say on first contact Asian Buddhianityists go on an Inquisition of the new world but are driven back, since the first contact was horrible that is seen as a religious attack or whatever and will sour relations later where if the first contact was peaceful and war erupted for non zealous matters relations wouldn't be permanetly stained.

Following good it gets a little deeper. Long periods of war between nations with mainly 1 type of religion can hurt the whole religions positions on one another bring the church to make states to have alliances. So the church if angered with another will beable to press you for alliances etc. Also after religious alliances are formed tearing them apart can be hard even if they seem to want to break apart.

Church's power

riot-Damage
protest-no damage, better support in countries with mass media
jihad-holy war
inquisition-ok no, no one will buy it if this is in.
repairs-need better name the church can help rebuild after natural disasters, will increase the number of converts from the diaster area

I cant think of any more. Holy war will give bonuses in recruits if the state decides to fight it or you can say no go. Also taxes and everything blow sky high but the church will want a total war. Scourched earth on those heretics.

------------------
King Par4!!

fldmarshallpar4@icqmail.com

There is no spoon
-The Matrix
Let's kick it up a notch!!
-Emeril Lagasse
Fresh Soy makes Tofu so silky
-Ming Tsai

[phunny pharmer]

I must say, religion is a touchy subject to some users. Since Firaxis wants to cater to the greatest number of buyers, they probably will not deliberately add a game element that could alienate gamers. However, I think I remember reading that CtP used or was going to use slavery in their game, and there was some sort of flack about that. I think (regardless as to the general consensus of the gamers in this forum) that Firaxis will be PC and leave religion out of the game.

That said, I think that religion would be a great addition to the game. Religion played an instrumental role in the founding of empires, in the expansion goals of many civilizations, and in the collapse and deaths of countless others. Each religion has had a different impact on the civilization, making some civs passive and others militaristic.

I see no easy way for Firaxis to implement a civ3 religion system. Reducing a religious system into a few mathematical rules must be very difficult; however, Micropose and Firaxis have already reduced human civilization into those few mathematical rules and have done an excellent job.

Just my $.02

[MidKnight Lament]

I'm not going to mention the whole religion model, because it's too big and I don't know a fair bit of it anyway... but a major point is that we don't use any names of religions in our world. If there's no comparisons, then we don't have to steer clear of touchy subjects. Different religions shouldn't have different effects on civs either. All we need to know is that some people follow one religion, and some follow another, and then model the effects from there.

If someone can be bothered finding a link to the old model (not too long), then that would be great. This comes up once a month, and I don't know where to point people.

- MKL