The Altera Centauri collection has been brought up to date by Darsnan. It comprises every decent scenario he's been able to find anywhere on the web, going back over 20 years.
25 themes/skins/styles are now available to members. Check the select drop-down at the bottom-left of each page.
Call To Power 2 Cradle 3+ mod in progress: https://apolyton.net/forum/other-games/call-to-power-2/ctp2-creation/9437883-making-cradle-3-fully-compatible-with-the-apolyton-edition
Originally posted by yellowdaddy
"American, but I am 1/2 Czech (though it is 4th generation) My great-grandparent came to America at the beginning of the 1900s."
hexagonian - wouldn't that make you an eighth Czech?
Technically, since my grandparent/great-grandparents became residents of the US, they could start tracing part of their ancestry in the US. Ethnically, my grandparents and great-grandparents on my father's side married pure Czech though even while living in the US.
I guess I could be called 100% American...
Yes, let's be optimistic until we have reason to be otherwise...No, let's be pessimistic until we are forced to do otherwise...Maybe, let's be balanced until we are convinced to do otherwise. -- DrSpike, Skanky Burns, Shogun Gunner
...aisdhieort...dticcok...
but the France and England date back to the dark ages (the end of the Iron Age), so are borderline cases - you could call them Saxons and Franks, and then let them evolve.
The Japs too. Even the Ruskies (Kievan Rus and Varangians).
The Spaniards are bit of a grey area, i think you could give them the beneft of the doubt.
The Germans/Scandinavians and Indians are complicated, because they're divided into lots of tribes
Aztecs are one of a long chain of civs, and should probably be called Toltecs or Olmecs.
China, Egypt, the Latins (Romans: a merger of Greek, Etruscan and Italic civilisation), Greeks, Persians, Assyro-Babylonians are all Iron Age or earlier.
the Sioux, should probably be given a different name - Athapaskans for example.
perhaps the solution would be to start the game at one of 6 different periods:
with different standard sets of civilisations (editable of course).
And the years/turns either going a little slower or use a Deuteros-style "time advance wheel" (perhaps a little seasonal and weather animation?!)
(hex - i mean ethnically - the only ethnic americans are the one's who run gambling outfits in the western reservations)
click below for work in progress Clash graphics...
clicaibh sios airson tairgnain neo-chriochnaichte dhe Clash... http://jackmcneill.tripod.com/
Supply Lines: Nice idea, but overcomplicates the game. I don't what to worry about "where is the supply caravan" at the same time I am thinking about where my Legions are going" If you really want this, weaken the units slightly when there are enemy units between your units and your cities. Certain units, such as paratroopers should not have this penalty.
Wonders for things that are controversial, not achievements: King Richard's Crusade is a classic example. It was a series of WARS. Why is a war a "wonder"??? The Contraception CtP wonder is another example of this.
Future techs in the core game: I want these in an "extended Civ" scenario, not in the historical game. In the current game, the only wonder that doesn't actually exist is the Cure for Cancer. lets not add anything else. This and the way the space race is handled is bad enough.
Citizen of the Apolyton team in the ISDG
Currently known as Senor Rubris in the PTW DG team
but the France and England date back to the dark ages (the end of the Iron Age), so are borderline cases - you could call them Saxons and Franks, and then let them evolve.
The Japs too. Even the Ruskies (Kievan Rus and Varangians).
The Spaniards are bit of a grey area, i think you could give them the beneft of the doubt.
The Germans/Scandinavians and Indians are complicated, because they're divided into lots of tribes
Aztecs are one of a long chain of civs, and should probably be called Toltecs or Olmecs.
China, Egypt, the Latins (Romans: a merger of Greek, Etruscan and Italic civilisation), Greeks, Persians, Assyro-Babylonians are all Iron Age or earlier.
the Sioux, should probably be given a different name - Athapaskans for example.
perhaps the solution would be to start the game at one of 6 different periods:
with different standard sets of civilisations (editable of course).
And the years/turns either going a little slower or use a Deuteros-style "time advance wheel" (perhaps a little seasonal and weather animation?!)
(hex - i mean ethnically - the only ethnic americans are the one's who run gambling outfits in the western reservations)
I think America qualifies because, of all of the civilizations in history, it has perhaps had the greatest impact on the world.
of all the civilisations in the world today, the one which has had the most impact is Britain, not America.
the list of things which make up the world we know (including America itself) are due to Britain.
for a start, what language are we speaking? English. Where's it from? England. Even Americans are more likely to pick up the standard British dictionary - the OED, as the ultimate reference, than any of their local hybrids like Funk and Wagnall etc...
and simply losing the Empire - the largest in history both in terms of population, area, and cultural reach - has not diminished Britain's role as much as even many British people think.
55 per cent of all the new patents in the world since the second world war are British. Even upto most recently British scientists have led in genetics - Cloning and Sulston's Human Genome. And the legacy before the war is even more impressive, and that's not including the patents which were stolen - such as Edison's lightbulb, which was actually patented a year earlier by Charles Swan, a British inventor.
Not only that, there are very few inventions, cultural innovaions and achievements in music, and the other arts where British people are not only present but leading.
In war, despite an army probably between a tenth and a fifth the size of Americas, Britain's military achievements are unmatched (though we have lost a couple of fights in the 20th century), and even today British forces are essential to America's success, because of their high skill levels and professionalism, and unique amounts of experience. British skills in urban warfare from Ulster are essential to the American military in Iraq today, Britain's SAS, the leading special forces unit in the world helping save American forces from slaughter in places like Afghanistan.
America's own CIA was set up and trained by British intelligence - SIS (MI5 and MI6) after the war.
For such an apparently small and ill-equipped country, Britain has achieved more than any other in the world, not only relative to it's size, but more full stop (=period). And the impact of British culture and values across the world - paid testament in most free and Commonwealth countries British style parliamentary democracy, free speech, law, and liberal multiparty politics is clear.
there are no ifs, buts, or ands, Britain is quiet simply the most important civilisation this planet has ever produced. America, is just one of it's lucky children.
click below for work in progress Clash graphics...
clicaibh sios airson tairgnain neo-chriochnaichte dhe Clash... http://jackmcneill.tripod.com/
I'm not really especially patriotic - I am Scottish after all!
('s Albannach a tha ann!)
but I do despair of (or rather, am amused by) Americans who go on about ithe USA being the "greatest country in the world" etc..., it isn't, and neither is the UK, but they're both in most people's top 10. (I think Canada and Australia are probably both better.)
most Brits (or more specifically, English) denegrate themselves so much, that they think dear old blighty is rubbish, but I think it needs to be said occasionally, that in fact, we're not. we've just been let down by crap governments since the war.
I'm just pointing out facts purely to correct the specific point about which country has had the most influence on the world.
I would obviously have to concede that since WW1, the USA has risen to dominate the world in a way that China and India used to centuries ago, but whether that hegemony will blossom into a British Empire style thing remains to be seen - personally, I doubt it, because it's not in the American psyche.
but back to the game - would asnyone like to comment on the things i said about the game?!
click below for work in progress Clash graphics...
clicaibh sios airson tairgnain neo-chriochnaichte dhe Clash... http://jackmcneill.tripod.com/
I would NOT like to see a mundane system of governments like Civ 3 has. Social Engineering is the best thing a civ game has produced. If not SE then at least more government choices, and those choices should mean more than whether you have to pay for all your military or whether you get a few units for free.
I would NOT like to see a mundane system of economics. Accumulation of wealth (gold in civ) as a measure of the strength of the economy could be the system of economics you get at the start of the game, but should be replaced (or you should be able to choose more, via SE or something similar) with new economic models as time goes by.
I would not like to see an isometric map with lots of straight lines everywhere (eg the map being divided into squares, with square oceans, square deserts, square mountains, square borders etc.) I would like to see curves, jagged lines, the occasional straight line etc.
I would not like to see the current lack of trading of resources. In all the games of civ 3 I play resources are never really traded much until late game, with technology being the big thing in trading. Trade was very important in the ancient world, but I'm usually to busy to link up with my neighbours until the middle ages. This could be fixed by adding alot more techs (making the game much longer but it means you could link up with your neighbours in the ancient age), by being able to trade without roads (a dumb idea if you ask me) or do something like have roads automatically appear around cities after time. The original problem highlights an inconsistency with the trading system - you need roads to be able to trade goods but you don't need roads to be able to trade ideas. If merchants aren't going to cross the wild frontiers to sell their goods, why would soothsayers?
Tweet
Comment