Nation Painting for cIV

[_BuRjaCi_]

Since my computer refuses to properly run Civilisation 4 my cIV games have been, few and far betwene. Last night I noticed that when destroying a civilisation, that all of my coqured lands sudenly turned "100% Roman".


Tell me how many nations go "poof" after they are conquerd. As I remember the real Romans needed centurys to asimilate their conquerd lands.
Please, remind me when the US army defeated Sadma Hussein, did all the Iraqies go "pof" and where instantley replaced by Americains and did they stop "rioting". In a C3C game I was playing Persia and early in my history I conquerd the Babilonians it was nice, to see a tiny minority survive to 2000 ( well they where slaves-captured workers that repopulated a city of mine ,the "real" babs where all asimilated in a milenia cca 1300 AD ).

The real point of this thread is that many of us would like scenarios where we have to run multie-ethnic empires. It's just silly to see an Age of Imperialism mod where india is 100% British or an Africa populated only by caucasians. And I dont want to bother creating civs I don't need and the conqering them.

I WANT and NEED a nation painter tool. You type in the name of your desired ethnic group and it apears with all the "civilised" ethnic groups. You select wich one you want, a paint-brush apears and you press it over cities to increase the procentage of the people in question ( without changing the total population ). And a more precise version wich allows you to type in the exact ethnic mix of the city regardless of culture. Combine with civics that change the assimilation rate and hapines of ethnic minorities ( fast asimilation- represion-unhappines and slow assimilation-multicultural enviroment-less unhapines ) and you have the potential to create realy interesting scenarios that are historicaly accurate (or at least plausible) and include interesting strategical decisions.

[Son of David]

I for one don't want things like race and multiculturalism built into Civ4 or any other version of Civ. Civ4 is for me one of the chief means of escaping such very personally felt and controversial topics that weigh in heavily on everyday life. (That said I could see the potential for it in the new Civ: City game or whatever its called.)

Although by all means do it for yourself in a Civ4 mod.

[_BuRjaCi_]

Originally posted by Son of David
I for one don't want things like race and multiculturalism built into Civ4 or any other version of Civ. Civ4 is for me one of the chief means of escaping such very personally felt and controversial topics that weigh in heavily on everyday life. (That said I could see the potential for it in the new Civ: City game or whatever its called.)

Although by all means do it for yourself in a Civ4 mod.

How can I do it myself?

Did I mention race? I was talking about ethnic groups. If we I'd put race in, wich is not a bad idea (for mods, I mean its not logical for Vulcans and Orcs to be assimilated into Bothans), it would be seperated entirely from ethnicity and would change only throug population growth,decline and migration. No assimilation.

Why is multiculturalism contraversial?

[_BuRjaCi_]

Who the hell woted that africa was white in colonial times?
Go spam an evolution thread!

( apology written below, was drunk that night,please forgive,for explanation please see below...)

[armchairknight]

I agree that the cultural assimilation does seem unrealistic. But...if what you suggest were to be done, it would still be unrealistic. Wouldn't it? The years per turn are not consistent and so the game would portray long drawn-out cultural assimilation in the early years and rapid whole-sale absorption toward the end of the game. Would this be a net-gain in the realism department? Or, if total assimilation never actually takes place, does charting the demographics actually enhance the gameplay experience? If a neighboring empire has similar ethnicities, would those cultural loyalties and hatreds affect either empire? If we include this kind of detail, would we then feel compelled to explore other demographic realities, like age groups, gender breakdown, and religious affiliations? How would we argue against doing so? While I don't personally view the game as a model of how the world works, I can see why some do. It just seems to me that the game is way too inaccurate in too many areas to worry about any individual inaccuracy. It is fun to play, after all.

[armchairknight]

Why offer an option in your poll if you're going to swear at a person for choosing the option that you offered. It makes no sense to me. At all. And BTW, I haven't voted in any way in the above poll.

[eris]

Well, I did have some ideas about this subject, but I would not want the pollster to accuse me of spam as well. Ergo, I am not replying to this poll.

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by eris
Ergo, I am not replying to this poll.

But you just did

[armchairknight]

LordShiva, that has to be the Wonderbread of posts. Devoid of virtually all nutritional content, but still bread.

[Zoid]

I don´t understand this poll...or the thread

[eris]

Originally posted by LordShiva


But you just did

My appended signature is the closest thing I have to offer as an explanation. If that does not work, longer explanations will do no better.

Even further off topic: I just got my PC back from yet another upgrade so it can run Civ 4! I'm so excited I could almost bring myself to use one of the smilies!

[Badtz Maru]

This is ridiculous...CivIV is not Victoria or even Europa Universalis, and doesn't need to model ethnic groups. The game is far more abstract and large scale than the type of game that would need to model that kind of detail. If they did add ethnicity to CivIV, it would be so abstracted that it would probably be less realistic than no ethnicity at all. Remember that most games are on random maps, and the game is only modelling the cultural and political boundaries of the 18 (or less) most powerful civilizations in the world. How the hell would you represent the hundreds of distinct and independent ethnic groups of Africa alone and how they interacted with each other over the years? Or the dozens of kingdoms in the British Isles alone?

It seems some people have a problem because they imagine when a map shows all of Africa conquered by England, France, etc., they think it means that those areas are all English and French people. Since ethnicity isn't modelled, all that means is those areas are under the same administrative control as the other territories in that civs color, that they speak their language there, play their sports, pay taxes to that nation, etc. This accurately reflects Africa during the colonial period, though of course there were large stretches of territory that were outside their control (the colonies culture didn't have the time or infrastructure to expand borders more than once or maybe twice).

On the scale CivIV is played, modelling all other people as barbarians is good enough.

[_BuRjaCi_]

Originally posted by armchairknight
I agree that the cultural assimilation does seem unrealistic. But...if what you suggest were to be done, it would still be unrealistic. Wouldn't it? The years per turn are not consistent and so the game would portray long drawn-out cultural assimilation in the early years and rapid whole-sale absorption toward the end of the game. Would this be a net-gain in the realism department? Or, if total assimilation never actually takes place, does charting the demographics actually enhance the gameplay experience? If a neighboring empire has similar ethnicities, would those cultural loyalties and hatreds affect either empire? If we include this kind of detail, would we then feel compelled to explore other demographic realities, like age groups, gender breakdown, and religious affiliations? How would we argue against doing so? While I don't personally view the game as a model of how the world works, I can see why some do. It just seems to me that the game is way too inaccurate in too many areas to worry about any individual inaccuracy. It is fun to play, after all.

1. The basic demand I have, is to do away with cIV's instant asimilation when you destroy a civ, if I remember from C3C that didn't produce the complex situations you portray.
2. The nation builder is only a modder tool. I want the ABILITY to do multhietnic (read multinational) empires and civics for SCENARIOS.
3. Assimilation took longer in ancient times, because of poor infrascruture (read isolation), closed social systems and low literacy rates.
4. Demographics would only afect race (only for mods- read the vulcan case) not ethnicity.
5.The effects are simple: I am playing Germany in a modern world scenario, I invade Turkey (braking my alliance with them), I don't share a culural border with them but I have a few procentst of "turks" and get a few unhapines points in my larger cities- if that seems complex, you may be playing the wrong gener of games.
6.) We already have "details" in ethnicity, to ilustrate; New York in a game of mine the year is 1060 AD, 60% americain 27% german, 12% azteck 1% Incan; The germans took New York from FDR a few centuries ago, it took it from them and there is an Incan city near by influencing New York with culture.

[_BuRjaCi_]

Originally posted by armchairknight
Why offer an option in your poll if you're going to swear at a person for choosing the option that you offered. It makes no sense to me. At all. And BTW, I haven't voted in any way in the above poll.

You are right, but I was drunk and realy pissed-off by redneck remarks concerning evolution and racism on another forum.

I sincerly apologise to that person, since when I opened my thread the remark seemed humurus (who could be bothered by more moding options-I tought so I linked it with a clearly untrue statement). When I cheched the thread I tought saw the same KKK member harasing me on another forum ( I use _BuRjaCi_ on that one too, my love for civ and apolyton is well known and the debate with that "redneck" was realy "intense" ).

[_BuRjaCi_]

Originally posted by eris
Well, I did have some ideas about this subject, but I would not want the pollster to accuse me of spam as well. Ergo, I am not replying to this poll.

The "am spaming the thread" seemed funy too and is not to be taken seriusly (reviewing some of my recen posts it ocured to me that I may have an alcohol problem- anyone here remember my hippie rant a while ago... ), but if you chose "I Don't care" ...

You are welcome to post your opinion IF you are serious and are not using this as an excuse for "spaming the thread"