Reply With QuoteI had not even thought of babylon, but that would be cool too. Glad to hear 2.86 is on the way
First of all... yes... v2.86 is still alive... just still with the same hang-up (I'm still [slowly] testing MG AI before I start finalizing v2.86).
Actually, if you guys want Saddam, I can probably do that too, but if I were to add Saddam, I doubt it would be for either Persia (Iran) or Arabia (as-in Saudi or Syrian)... Saddam would probably come from a place called "Baghdad" which would fall squarely in Ancient Sumeria or Babylon (both of which lie in nearly identical locations... stupid... stupid, but it is what it is).
Wolfshanze Mod: for BtS... adds "flavored Civs", coal-fired navies, WWI units, plus Poland, Austria & Vietnam to Civ4!
I had not even thought of babylon, but that would be cool too. Glad to hear 2.86 is on the way
A lot of them are Barb city names. So, they'd probably have to be removed from the Barb city list.Originally posted by ladiesman
I'm also still on the native america thing......I don't want to open the whole can of worms, I know you won't change the name. But I was playing as them recently and noticed that their cities have horrible names. How do you feel about naming the cities after different tribes.....which even keeps it a bit more realistic in some ways. Since the native americans were nomadoic, the cities would more represent the tribes themselves, and the buildings/wonder the accomplishments of that tribe in their area? I know some of the barbarians have native american names but that can't be that hard to modify. It's a stupid, minor thing but the small touches can sometimes make the game.
I can work on that too... change city names to tribes (edit Barbarians as well).Originally posted by wodan11
A lot of them are Barb city names. So, they'd probably have to be removed from the Barb city list.
Is 2.86 going to use modular civs or are you just doing minor tweaks (like updating leaderheads, etc)?
On the topic of the Native American civs. In the mod I made I replaced the Native Americans with the Sioux and Iroquois. I figured since they were both former Civilizations in the Civ series this would be the best way to handle the issue. I have falvored units, city names, and UUs/UBs for them. So if you want to go that route I could probably get that information to you.
"Our cause is in the hands of fate. We can not guarantee success. But we can do something better; we can deserve it." -John Adams
One Love.
Will motorized infantry be in 2.86?
I'm still trying to figure-out why the Sioux and Iroquois are the only tribes worthy of being singled-out while the Cherokees, Apaches, Comanches, Navajo, Pueblo, Seminoles, Algonkians, Arapaho, Blackfoot, Cheyenne, Chickasaw, Choctaw, Creek, Crow, Dakota, Hopi, Huron, Kickapoo, Kiowa, Lakota, Mingo, Mohawk, Mohican, Mojave, Nambe, Nantucket, Ottawa, Pawnee, Pequot, Shawnee, Spokane, Tonkawa, Wampano, Yuma and about 300 other native tribes aren't worthy of being singled-out. Smacks of incredible insensibility and non political correctness if you ask me, and why is it always those two that get singled out? The Mohicans or Navajo or Comanches or Apache or Cherokee nations aren't anymore deserving? I sometimes think people have only ever heard of the Sioux and Iroquois, because I've never seen any two other tribes singled-out... a shame too... would tick a lot of Seminoles off at the least.Originally posted by The Capo
On the topic of the Native American civs. In the mod I made I replaced the Native Americans with the Sioux and Iroquois.
No thanks Capo... I have other plans.
Last edited by Wolfshanze; December 11, 2008 at 18:29.
haha.....oh well I guess it came back.Originally posted by Wolfshanze
I'm still trying to figure-out why the Sioux and Iroquois are the only tribes worthy of being singled-out while the Cherokees, Apaches, Comanches, Navajo, Pueblo, Seminoles, Algonkians, Blackfoot, Cheyenne, Choctaw, Creek, Crow, Dakota, Hopi, Huron, Kickapoo, Lakota, Mingo, Mohawk, Mohican, Mojave, Nambe, Nantucket, Ottawa, Shawnee, Spokane, Tonkawa, Wampano, Yuma and about 300 other native tribes aren't worthy of being singled-out. Smacks of incredible insensibility and non political correctness if you ask me, and why is it always those two that get singled out? The Mohicans or Navajo or Comanches or Apache or Cherokee nations aren't anymore deserving? I sometimes think people have only ever heard of the Sioux and Iroquois, because I've never seen any two other tribes singled-out... a shame too... would tick a lot of Seminoles off at the least.
No thanks Capo... I have other plans.
Wolf....the reason why people pick the Sioux and Iroquois....beyond just the fact that they had been in previous civ games.....is that they were the two tribes who created something alittle larger. They both created alliances and unions with other tribes to create something more like a civilization than the other. You could possibly put the Cherokee into that group as well for just being large and advanced.
There IS some historical reasoning beyond those two groups...it's not just two random tribes.
On a personal level, I still just think "Native America" sounds absolutely terrible as a country name. I don't really care what else it's called, I just wish it was......something else.
But this is obviously a pointless battle....and one not really worth fighting anyway. I am happy your considering the city names though....
At the risk of sounding like Wolf's PR person, I don't think he's going to go the route of modular civs. AFAIK, 2.86 is going to have some tweaked AI for the use of machine guns, motorized infantry (hopefully...), some more leaderheads, and possibly some tech tree tweaks.Is 2.86 going to use modular civs or are you just doing minor tweaks (like updating leaderheads, etc)?
Speaking of tech tree tweaks........wolf I finally played through a game in 2.85 all the way. I *LOVE* the gunpowder tweaks. Normally in my games I'd run right through Muskets, have Rifles for a short time only, and then have Infantry (and completely skip Grenadiers). Now I had ample play time with Muskets, I had to get Grens but they vanished fairly quickly, and I used rifles for a very long time.
I vehemently disagree that the Sioux and Iroquois have an extensive or exclusive tag to "most advanced/civilized" native tribes in America label. I don't think either is all that and a bag of chips compared to many other tribes in America. Pueblo and Cherokee nations were just as advanced and organized or better then either of the "we can only acknowledge these two" tribes... there are certainly other tribes that were also far more dangerous... there's so many factors that I could go on and on and on, it's simply a travesty to say only the Sioux and Iroquois deserve recognition at the cost of over 300 other tribes... insulting frankly IMHO... completely insulting to single them out and ignore the others... it's like saying only France and Germany are deserving civs in Europe and all other European civs should be ignored (then repeating that only France and Germany are deserving... nobody ever picks any other two).Originally posted by ladiesman
haha.....oh well I guess it came back.
Wolf....the reason why people pick the Sioux and Iroquois....beyond just the fact that they had been in previous civ games.....is that they were the two tribes who created something alittle larger. They both created alliances and unions with other tribes to create something more like a civilization than the other. You could possibly put the Cherokee into that group as well for just being large and advanced.
There IS some historical reasoning beyond those two groups...it's not just two random tribes.
It's to the point of ridiculous that they are the only two mentioned, and no... I don't think it's because like some excuse that they are the only deserving, I honestly think it's because they were the only two in previous Civ games... I think if the Apache and Huron were the only two in previous Civ games, you'd all be on the Apache/Huron bandwagon... seriously.
Even still then, name them Cherokee or whatever. I don't really care WHAT the civs name is. I just something better than "Native America" If I knew a general name native americans used to describe themselves, i'd say use that.
EDIT -
Although I do think you dismiss the importance of the two tribes too quickly. The Great Sioux Nation and the Iroquois Confederacy were (arguably, I guess) the two best attempts at a unified native american nation. Both tribes are representative of many other tribes and especially in the case of the Iroqouis, actively tried to assimilate other tribes into the whole. The Cherokee Nation is/was also a large, well developed tribe but i'd generally leave them off only because they were largely limited to their own tribe. They had a large tribe, which became very civilized and IIRC remains the largest tribe today......but they're all Cherokee.
I do agree that most here will argue for Sioux and Iroquois for their relevance to the Civ series........but I think hand in hand, the reason they were chosen for the Civ series was their historical importance.
Last edited by ladiesman; December 11, 2008 at 19:27.
Done... "Native Americans" it is.If I knew a general name native americans used to describe themselves, i'd say use that.
Pretty much the same as saying "Europeans" if you wanted to lump all the European civs together without picking out one or two (like Germany and France and ignoring all other European nations).
Fail. Native Americans do not refer to their social/political groups as "Native America"Originally posted by Wolfshanze
Done... "Native Americans" it is.
....
Funny... I lived in Oklahoma for many years... you know... "Indian Territory"... I knew a lot of native americans... been on several reservations... they called themselves native americans.Originally posted by ladiesman
Fail. Native Americans do not refer to their social/political groups as "Native America"....
Give me a break... it's like saying black people don't call themselves "blacks" or "African Americans". Just because you don't like the term doesn't mean it's not used on a wide scale by many including the native tribes themselves.
You need to let it go... I actually went to reservations and they had no problem calling themselves native americans... you need to just accept how it is.
I'm not changing it to insult several hundred tribes just to name one or two because some people have a problem using the term "Native American" which is a perfectly legit term.
How about Anishinaabe.
That covers most of the tribes in north-eastern and north-central North America.
We've argued about this like a thousand times now and you've never gotten what i'm saying.Originally posted by Wolfshanze
Funny... I lived in Oklahoma for many years... you know... "Indian Territory"... I knew a lot of native americans... been on several reservations... they called themselves native americans.
Give me a break... it's like saying black people don't call themselves "blacks" or "African Americans". Just because you don't like the term doesn't mean it's not used on a wide scale by many including the native tribes themselves.
You need to let it go... I actually went to reservations and they had no problem calling themselves native americans... you need to just accept how it is.
I'm not changing it to insult several hundred tribes just to name one or two because some people have a problem using the term "Native American" which is a perfectly legit term.
*AS A GROUP*, their adjective, IS "Native Americans". Yes.
*AS A NATION/COUNTRY/POLITICAL GROUP* their name *IS NOT* "Native America"
There is not, has not, nor ever will there be a country, empire, city state, nation, tribe, or anything of the sort called "Native America".
As a group of people, "Native Americans" is a perfectly legit term of course. "Native America" as a country is flat out incorrect, and just does not sound right.
For in-game purposes, it is not realistic to use ALL Native America tribes as playable civs. Therefore rather than simply giving them a cumbersome name that doesn't really make any sense for an empire name, i'd like to see.........something else.
This is NOT saying that "All native peoples of North America are Sioux/Iroqouis/whatever". It is in no way an attempt to offend any individual tribe. It is merely an attempt to change a rather awkward sounding nation name of "Native America" to something a little more aesthetically pleasing. It just so happens that the Sioux and Iroqouis are a tad closer to something that could be considering a civilization by game standards than some other tribes. This is no way meant to be offensive to any other tribe, it is merely a historical comparison.
To use your African American comparison, what i'm suggesting is actually no different than what was done in game already. There is no "Africa" civ. There's Ethiopia. There's Mali. There's Zululand. I'm merely pointing out that if the makers of civ decided to just make a lumped together "Africa" civ........i'd be doing the same thing for them, trying to get one group singled out. Afterall, going by your logic, you should see how the game is now currently as offensive and disrespectful towards the Akwa, Ambo, Uganda, Bantu, Nguni, Kenyan, Somali, Swazi, Zande, etc.
To recap; i'm not saying Native Americans don't call themselves Native Americans. I'm saying they wouldn't call a Native American nation "Native America".
ladiesman, first off, I completely agree with you. Secondly, it's an easy fix, a simple XML tweak. Wolf disagrees, and his reasons are valid ones, which he expressed clearly and directly. There comes a point where you should really just accept the fact that you can agree to disagree, especially since for your own games, you can easily change the name.
Wolf am I correct in assuming motorized inf aren't making it into 2.86? When they do make it in, I suggest you rename INFANTRY to Squad Infantry, as I think this is really what the Unit type is about, a combination of mass produced gear combined with squad based combat tactics instead of massed formations. Also doesn't it bother you that pretty much every Unit_Combat melee, Archer, Trench & Gun can be considered Infantry, or is this like the Native American thing?
I actually did a long time ago. I didn't want to go there again. At this point it's more of an unrelated argument about semantics.Originally posted by phungus420
ladiesman, first off, I completely agree with you. Secondly, it's an easy fix, a simple XML tweak. Wolf disagrees, and his reasons are valid ones, which he expressed clearly and directly. There comes a point where you should really just accept the fact that you can agree to disagree, especially since for your own games, you can easily change the name.
I've accepted he's not changing the name in the mod....I accepted that a long time ago. I'm arguing the reasoning now.It's a healthy debate, i'm not taking it personally and I don't THINK Wolf is.
As for the game itself....
Um....Wolf....I don't know what happened this time. So i'm playing and for once i'm actually concentrating on my navy (I usually let enemies land then deal with it). I don't know if you changed anything in tech trees for the naval units but I jumped from Age of Sail to Dreadnought Age. I wish I could be more specific with how I did it, but I wasn't keeping track.
Three Questions/Ideas on my end- since I know these are ideas Wolf has thought about.
You said you were thinking about a tech to make factories earlier- how about Manufacturing as the name of it?
Prereq would be Economics and maybe Chemistry , would be a Req for Corporation and Rifling
Would give the Factory, and maybe you could move a military unit to there, such as Cannon.
The next two are really requests, but I know you've looked at the first
1) APC's. Where should APC's fit in? Also, should Anti-Tank Infantry have a bonus against them (that unit needs a boost in general I think, I've only ever built them in one game) I don't like one tech providing most of the best WWII units. Maybe you should add in another tech for Blitzkrieg Doctrine that would enable some WWII units such as APC and Tank. What made the Blitzkrieg so special was the doctrine behind it more then technology.
I know you dislike adding techs, but I think this one would make sense, just like Air Superiority.
2) I'd still like to see true Napoleonic Infantry at some point, but that can wait until you're satisfied with the rest of it.
Last edited by equineforecaster; December 12, 2008 at 03:53.
Wolf - a suggestion for 2.86. Change some of the text related to spies. I think its rather bland to see "water poisoned by enemy infiltrators." For a more modern focused mod like yours changing enemy infiltrators to "terrorists" adds to the flavor. I have it in my gametext I'll post it if interested.
Wow, sorry for making the Native American thing an issue, I was just trying to help.
I guess I'll just state why I made the Iroquois and Sioux the two Native American civs, and its quite simple; because they were former Civilization civs.
If it was the Cherokee, or the Pueblo or any other nations they would have been used in my mod. So that is the only reason why I have replaced the Native Americans in my mod with those two tribes. That and I found flavored units for them.
EDIT: This is The Capo BTW, I am not supposed to make posts outside of the diplogame thread with this log-in. I forgot I was logged in as PBK. Sorry.
Ah, Tradition. Bringing mankind excellent reasons for doing things ever since... umm, I forget what it was or why they did it in the first place. STILL! It warms me deep in the cockles of my heart to see someone doing something just because that's the way it was done before.Originally posted by Pitboss Korea
I guess I'll just state why I made the Iroquois and Sioux the two Native American civs, and its quite simple; because they were former Civilization civs.
I think Grenadiers are pretty much Napleonic Infantry. If you don't like the name"Grenadiers" just change it. But the Grenadier, Cuirassier, Cannon age that is pretty much napoleonic warfare.
As for Native Americans, can we just move on. Its wolf's mod he does the work and we get the fun so if he doesn't want to change it, forget about it. Its simple enough to change on your own for your personal mod. Its just not worth fighting over.Although I do think its a neat idea to give individual city tribal names. just my two bits
I think it's the hats that give them away.Originally posted by tomppb
I think Grenadiers are pretty much Napleonic Infantry.
The hats are *****in' (can I say that)
I guess I can't because it was auto censored
Wolfie,
Is this Santa Anna any closer? Comments?
edit: reduced to less than 800pixels wide. Man now I remember why Istopped going on Aployton - too restrictive on posting stuff and DL database is horrible.
Wow... that is about a 1,000x better Santa Anna... much better... moi bueno!
Wolfshanze Mod: for BtS... adds "flavored Civs", coal-fired navies, WWI units, plus Poland, Austria & Vietnam to Civ4!
Awesome Santa Anna Ekmek. The only two nitpicks I'd make about it are these; first I'd move that third "blue medal" either centered underneath the othe two, or to the left of the first one, it looks a little lost in the clutter of his uniform. And any possibility of adding the Mexican coat of arms to his sash (the eagle eating the snake on the cactus between the laurels). I think this would make him look just a bit better. But he looks good as it is.
Last edited by The Capo; December 13, 2008 at 16:38.
"Our cause is in the hands of fate. We can not guarantee success. But we can do something better; we can deserve it." -John Adams
One Love.
I think Capo means this Eagle... but in any case, I agree... looks great as-is, but here's the Eagle if you want it...Originally posted by The Capo
Awesome Santa Anna Ekmek. ...any possibility of adding the Mexican coat of arms to his sash (the eagle eating the snake on the cactus between the laurels). I think this would make him look just a bit better. But he looks good as it is.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks