14 POLL: "unique benefits depending on the Civilization you choose" - Page 4

Grumbold · January 24, 2001, 09:48

quote:

"The historical precedent for this would be the English, who were basicly unbeatable until the more than met their match in the war of 1812. "

Off the top of my head, the "English" are the people who occupy the largest part of the British Isles and have been invaded, conquered, occupied (in whole or part) and generally roughly handled by the Romans, Saxons, Irish, Norse, Vikings and Normans to name but a few. If civ3 can somehow model that and still allow them to later grow into an imperial power I will be mightily impressed! Personally I expect we'll never know because most players would have restarted at or before 50 A.D

St Leo · January 24, 2001, 20:09

Off the top of my head, the "English" are the people who occupy the largest part of the British Isles and have been invaded, conquered, occupied (in whole or part) and generally roughly handled by the Romans, Saxons, Irish, Norse, Vikings and Normans to name but a few.

Off the top of my head, the "English" are Saxons( +Angles +Jutes +Frisians +Whatever) who dispaced Celts (as in Welsh, Britons, Scots, Picts, and Irish) and were for brief periods of time ruled by Romans and Vikings (Danes, Norwegians, Normans).

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

Cyclotron · January 25, 2001, 01:15

quote:

Originally posted by Biddles on 01-23-2001 07:26 PM
Contrary to popular(american) belief, the war of 1812 was merely a sideshow to the napoleonic wars. Besides, nobody won the war of 1812, it ended in compromise.

Actually, at least some of us Americans are well informed. Not really a compromise, more of a standoff that nobody could win. The British Parliament backed down on impressment policies (although ironically this happened several days BEFORE we declared war, due to poor communication) but they got to burn down our capital. Mostly, it was just a morale booster for us due to the Battle of New Orleans, which would have been a decisive victory for us but for the fact it was fought a few days AFTER the treaty to end the war was signed. Although the causes of the war of 1812 sprang from British policy during the Napoleonic Wars, it was not part of it. And it certainly wasn't a sideshow to the Americans.

Theben · January 25, 2001, 21:35

It seems the idea to have benefits arrive with experience is quite popular. I think Firaxis knows what to do now.

January 25, 2001, 22:21

we got Brian Reynolds to answer on the issue...
http://apolyton.net/misc/interviews/bhg_breynolds.shtml

Biddles · January 26, 2001, 08:41

Sorry, sideshow was probably the wrong word to use. I was meaning that 1812 was pretty much inconsequential to the european powers since they were more worried about what was happening to them. (And I didn't want it to mean that it was "a sideshow"to americans)

Sarxis · February 1, 2001, 15:05

The more options you give us, the more of us you will please!

Who says you can't please everyone?

Lancer · February 2, 2001, 00:47

Actually I don't like options. I think there should be an option button that turns them off.

Theben · February 2, 2001, 01:20

How about trade options? I'd like to sell AT&T short...

Maniac · February 2, 2001, 17:17

Where could I find some more information about that presumed war between the British and the Americans in 1812? I, nor my history teacher, has ever heart before of that war or a 'Battle of New Orleans'. That unimportant it must have been!

airdrik · February 2, 2001, 18:44

quote:

Originally posted by M@ni@c on 02-02-2001 04:17 PM
Where could I find some more information about that presumed war between the British and the Americans in 1812? I, nor my history teacher, has ever heart before of that war or a 'Battle of New Orleans'. That unimportant it must have been!

You've never heard of the War of 1812? Have you heard the 1812 Overture(which wasn't written till a while after the fact)? The song 'The Star Spangled Banner' was written by an American captured by the Brittish durring that war as well. You can look it up on the net or in your local library, or in an encyclopedia, etc. It happened and you must have described it to your teacher wrong if you think he/she doesn't know.

Anyway I like the idea of developing bonuses/penalties over time. It would be interresting to try and play the peace loving scientific country with all the science bonuses in the world and then when you've researched everything turn arround and get slautered trying to whip everyone else out with your howizers and armors when they still have musketeers and cannons

.

Theben · February 3, 2001, 04:24

Mani@c is from Belgium, I believe, so he's got a reason not to have heard of it.

Roman · February 3, 2001, 08:17

I have certainly heard of the 1812 war, but no insult to anyone, the war's importance was very minor, so I do not understand why is it being held up as an example. Someone, please explain.

Maniac · February 4, 2001, 14:38

American patriotism; that's all.

Maniac · February 4, 2001, 14:40

Ignore this double-post due to my slow internet connection combined with my momentarily impatient mood.
[This message has been edited by M@ni@c (edited February 04, 2001).]

vonManstein · February 5, 2001, 00:44

quote:

Originally posted by airdrik on 02-02-2001 05:44 PM
You've never heard of the War of 1812? Have you heard the 1812 Overture(which wasn't written till a while after the fact

.

The 1812 Overture (written by Tchaikovsky) was to celebrate the Russian victory over Napoleon, and had nothing to do with the American War of Independance.

TheAuk · February 5, 2001, 11:40

Surely the killer argument against hardcoded values is the number of civs that are likely to be involved.. I think that SMAC factions worked remarkably well (although SMAX ones less so) in terms of game balance, but the likelihood of getting 30 or so different civs with different SE/whatever attributes right without making some huge howlers is pretty low.

I do think that it would be a big shame however if it wasn't possible to creat scenarios that had some hardcoded characteristics built in. The SE system worked well in SMAC since the whole storyline/world was based around them - it is easy to see situations where a scenario editor would want to create civs with very strong personalities.

Cyclotron · February 6, 2001, 18:37

All history is relative. The war of 1812 was quite important to the British and Americans... I can equally say that various other wars in countries are insinificant.

What if I said:
"What about the Russo-Japanese war? I'm not Russian or Japanese, so why should I care?"

This is ignorance. In fact, the said war made a very large difference to the people it affected. History is NEVER global. I bet Chile was affected very little by World War I. Don't be ignorant.

Roman · February 6, 2001, 21:11

Hey, hey, hey, I meant no offence. I did not even mean that the 1812 war was not important for world affairs (though it was overshadowed by Napoleonic Wars in Europe at the time).
Perhaps I should clarify myself: I assert the 1812 war was not important enough to provide a basis on which to judge unique benefits for civs.

Personally I hope that there will be no pre-set benefits, but that some will develop during the game.

Diodorus Sicilus · February 7, 2001, 01:54

Roman, your original comment regarding the War of 1812 does make a very important point in the "hardwired characteristics" debate: how can any one event no matter how important to anyone at the time define the characteristics of a civilization that, in the game, may last for 6000 years or more? To use the English (or Southern British?) as an example, do you give them a defining characteristic based on Stonehenge Building, Shakespearean Theater, Steam-Powered Industrial Revolution, Parliamentary Democracy or Aggressive Naval Traditions - just to name a few elements in their history.
To include specialized set characteristics for civs in CivIII would only expand one of the continuing buggerups in all the Civ-type games: the idea that a civilization remains constant or consistant over dozens of centuries. I would pay almost any amount for a civ game in which, for instance, my starting Civ of Britons was conquered by Celts, then by Romans, became Romano-British, was overrun by Germanic (Angle-Saxon) Barbarians, formed yet another civilization, then was conquered (again) by Frenchified Vikings (Normans) to become English - which then conquer the Welsh, Scots, and Irish to become a British United Kingdom. This Civ would start with a 'characteristic' of sophisticated mass labor organization (to build Stonehenge), pick up intensive city-building and improvements from the Romans, extensive individual legal rights from the Saxons, armored cavalry techniques from the Normans, massed longbows from the Welsh, and an extensive navy after fighting several naval wars with the Dutch and French - and as a geographical result of being stuck on a island.
Characteristics should come about because of historical and geographical situations, which will change and change the characteristics over time. Otherwise, they risk becoming ridiculous, such as a Viking civilization with long-range sailing special abilities which has all its cities landlocked in a desert.

markusf · February 7, 2001, 19:35

Like i said before change what the specialists do!!!.
For instance a german scientist my produce 4 beakers...
I also say add more specialists(worker and farmer)
worker produces 3 shields and a farmer 6 food.
Also there are a ton of specials in the game. If the germans have a industrial bonus coal output should be increased by 2 shields, or a wheat produces 5 food instead of 3 for some civs oil produces + 2 shields and silk produces 2 less trade then normal etc etc etc. Depending on what civ u are...

Ribannah · February 8, 2001, 21:27

quote:

Originally posted by Lancer on 01-23-2001 06:31 PM
Sure, there were exceptions, don't get me wrong. That's what I meant by 'basicly', as in 'for the most part'. Btw, what happened to DeGrasse and his fleet? The French, the Spanish, the Dutch, and even the Danes, all got crushed by the English at sea, or in port)

In the relevant period, there were four wars between the English and the Dutch, of which 3 were won by the Dutch (including one in which the English had joined forces with the French and two German counties).

------------------
If you have no feet, don't walk on fire

Ribannah · February 8, 2001, 21:39

quote:

Originally posted by St Leo on 01-24-2001 07:09 PM
Off the top of my head, the "English" are Saxons( +Angles +Jutes +Frisians +Whatever) who dispaced Celts (as in Welsh, Britons, Scots, Picts, and Irish) and were for brief periods of time ruled by Romans and Vikings (Danes, Norwegians, Normans).

The Celts weren't the first people in England either, and many people from Normandy (France, not Scandinavia) migrated to England after they beat the Saxons. So the "English" are a mix of four tribes, with some Viking and Roman influences on the side.

------------------
If you have no feet, don't walk on fire

Cyclotron · February 9, 2001, 22:31

I don't mean to be on the offensive, but I find all this American-bashing disturbing

Anyway... I think the problem with abilities is that... well... to use them correctly, we need to find the ROOT of each ability, not just the historical fact.

For example, take the British Empire. Some have suggested that since they were a large naval power, they should have faster/ more numerous ships. But this breaks down when the British are landlocked. So, we must identify the reasons for Britain's sea power.

1) Britain was a very expantionist country and a colonial power.
2) They are located entirely on a relatively small island.

So, by getting to the root of the ability, we find that each historically based ability is in turned based on a few reasons for the ability:

1) Attitude of the Civ, i.e. colonial or self-centered
2) Geographical conditions, i.e. being on a shore or desert

Some people might object to 1, because this in turn probably has numerous historical roots that would be difficult to analyze. That kind of stuff (origins of a superpower) is the stuff term papers are made of, not games.

Number two, however, seems like an intriguing idea. This would be a great way to implement unique civs, and it would be impossible to offend someone. I don't know the precise way of implementing this, but it seems to be the majority of this forum's (and my own) favorite option.

Biddles · February 10, 2001, 08:38

America Bashing!

Most people have just been pointing out that the USA isn't the be all to end all.

Roman · February 10, 2001, 09:42

I haven't read the whole thread only the last part of it, but I don't remember any anti-American posts in what I have read.

Roman · February 10, 2001, 09:55

quote:

Originally posted by cyclotron7 on 02-09-2001 09:31 PM
2) Geographical conditions, i.e. being on a shore or desert

Number two, however, seems like an intriguing idea. This would be a great way to implement unique civs, and it would be impossible to offend someone. I don't know the precise way of implementing this, but it seems to be the majority of this forum's (and my own) favorite option.

I agree.

Cyclotron · February 10, 2001, 19:25

quote:

Originally posted by Biddles on 02-10-2001 07:38 AMMost people have just been pointing out that the USA isn't the be all to end all.

Huh? I don't believe anyone here even said the Americans were the "be all to end all" or any other such comment.

I think this whole thing got started by somebody saying that the British had the most powerful navy until the Battle of 1812... I don't think this is true, the Battle of 1812 was fought primarily on land and the British remained the biggest sea power for some time to come.

TacticalGrace · February 12, 2001, 10:56

I think when Airdrik from the good ol' US said this:

quote:

You've never heard of the War of 1812? Have you heard the 1812 Overture(which wasn't written till a while after the fact)?

all the Europeans thought here we go again. Next they'll be claiming that they invented apple pie

I still don't know what the war of 1812 was. I would have assumed it was the war between Napoleon and Russia but I doubt that's what people have been meaning.

on the subject of Civ3, the original subject here: if we are thinking about the reality of a birth of a civilisation, can anyone explain how we can have an American civ and a native american civ? I mean what's the logic there? I don't want to be bashing Americans (even if they are a bunch of splitters

), but doesn't anyone else find it a bit strange and unsatisfying?

Cyclotron · February 12, 2001, 16:22

It is true that however much people may like to start as the Americans, that Civ is a product of time, not of original growth and settling from the beginnning of human civilization as all the others seem to be (to a certain degree, nobody is perfectly original). As long as there are Civs with custom names, they can and probably should remove the Americans. It won't bother me. Maybe they should be the default race name for the civilization that forms whenever the English player gets a schism from having the capital captured