Getting started on Civ4 for a Civ2 vet

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Heraclitus
what about Liberalism leading to Communism? I find that a bit funny

Liberalism here is 18th century stuff - locke, voltaire, etc. getting marxism (which i think is what is meant by communism, not Leninism, its too early in the tree otherwise) from liberalism plus sci method, is dryly accurate. typical of the boring tree.

Mt Rushmore from fascism is an attempt at humor, and its too heavy handed.

compare that to chemistry plus commerce (i think that was it) giving medicine. Of communism PLUS capitalism giving espionage.

For the stuff that wasnt funny, but was insightful, go see my old column on civ2's hegelian tech tree.

[Blaupanzer]

"Hegelian tech tree," he drops into the discussion. Amazing mind.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Blaupanzer
"Hegelian tech tree," he drops into the discussion. Amazing mind.

for your reading pleasure

http://www.apolyton.net/misc/column/183_hegel.shtml

[lord of the mark]

btw - I won my game on warlord, but due to the mistakes mentioned above, only on points in 2050. I would have won the AC race, but wasnt done yet when the game ended.

Then I played as Japan on Noble. I made some crucial errors in the first couple of turns, then recovered - was 6 of 7 civs, was devouring the Mongolians - then Russia declared war - not even neighbors, but a nasty war it was. I should have taken a white piece, but was tempted to ask for more, send off a big stack to Russia and lost it. I realized I was now hopelessly behind (in 1500 CE or so) so I bagged it and Im going to start a new game.

[Unimatrix11]

Can i assume, by your usage of the term ´white peace´, that you also play pardadox titles ?

[Blaupanzer]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
for your reading pleasure
http://www.apolyton.net/misc/column/183_hegel.shtml

Based on your earlier work specifically on the dialectics of the techs, what do you think of Civ IV? You noted "damn, its dull. It doesn't have the humor and the clever historical insights" that brought Civ 2 such insightful historical reflection.

I would note that many techs lead directly to other techs and capabilities in ways not clearly exhibited in history, e.g., Horseback Riding and Construction lead to the cabability to use War Elephants, even though ivory (and presumably the associated elephants) could be exploited with a camp, a capability associated with one of the six primary techs, Hunting. Similarly ancient Republics are not possible and slavery is enabled by Bronze Working??? In Civ IV's favor, the 5-headed civics tree, espionage subsystem, and simplified trade systems are great improvwements over Civ 2, although I miss spies bribing barbarians and the camel-based caravans.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Blaupanzer


Based on your earlier work specifically on the dialectics of the techs, what do you think of Civ IV? You noted "damn, its dull. It doesn't have the humor and the clever historical insights" that brought Civ 2 such insightful historical reflection.

I would note that many techs lead directly to other techs and capabilities in ways not clearly exhibited in history, e.g., Horseback Riding and Construction lead to the cabability to use War Elephants, even though ivory (and presumably the associated elephants) could be exploited with a camp, a capability associated with one of the six primary techs, Hunting. Similarly ancient Republics are not possible and slavery is enabled by Bronze Working??? In Civ IV's favor, the 5-headed civics tree, espionage subsystem, and simplified trade systems are great improvwements over Civ 2, although I miss spies bribing barbarians and the camel-based caravans.

theres a lot more moving parts attached to the tech tree in civ4 than in civ 2 not only units, wonders, building but also religions and diplo options. Plus the govt model is more complex and its all tied to the tech tree. So i cant really blame them for foregoing the little historical touches on the tech tree, something had to give.

Ancient republics didnt happen in Civ2 either. its real hard to cover both ancient and ren era republics. And I think its a better choice to focus on Ren era ones. It would be a long discussion why.

Bronze age is perfect for starting slavery. While there may have been slaves earlier, bronze age monarchies are really where the level of surplus, the degree of social hierarchy becomes enough to have large scale slavery. I cant think of good historical citations, maybe Guns Germs and steel, or End of the Bronze Age by Drews.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Unimatrix11
Can i assume, by your usage of the term ´white peace´, that you also play pardadox titles ?

EU2 is one of my faves of all time. Ive played Vickie and enjoyed it, and CK and enjoyed it (havent bought Vickie Rev or CKDV, though - I think Id get more out of Vickie with Rev) dabbled with the first HOI a bit.

[Blaupanzer]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
Bronze age is perfect for starting slavery. While there may have been slaves earlier, bronze age monarchies are really where the level of surplus, the degree of social hierarchy becomes enough to have large scale slavery. I cant think of good historical citations, maybe Guns Germs and steel, or End of the Bronze Age by Drews.

Drews' book emphasizes how those conditions fell with a massive rush of what Civ would show as barbarian swordsman. Nonetheless, he does depict the Bronze age as a time when slavery would be more organized, as well as a clear depiction of the Palace-based economy of that period. However, the direct ability to mine the appropriate metals and smelt them into bronze implements (Bronze Working) hardly enabled Slavery. ("I have discovered bronze, on your knees slave!) My comment was meant as a bit of a wink about the underlying humor still present in the tree, which must inevitably shorten the elaborate interrelationships of historical progress into a select number of tech-related steps.

[lord of the mark]

BTW Im now playing Russia on Noble. Im slightly ahead of the top AI.


When you do a terran map, does it always create an old world where all the civs are, and a civless new world?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Blaupanzer


Drews' book emphasizes how those conditions fell with a massive rush of what Civ would show as barbarian swordsman. Nonetheless, he does depict the Bronze age as a time when slavery would be more organized, as well as a clear depiction of the Palace-based economy of that period. However, the direct ability to mine the appropriate metals and smelt them into bronze implements (Bronze Working) hardly enabled Slavery. ("I have discovered bronze, on your knees slave!) My comment was meant as a bit of a wink about the underlying humor still present in the tree, which must inevitably shorten the elaborate interrelationships of historical progress into a select number of tech-related steps.

thats a necessary abstraction. Im glad you find humor in it. I myself often find humor in such things. But that wasnt really what I meant.

[joncnunn]

Yes, and the maps are also almost a full map size larger than normal.
e.g. Terra Standard almost as big as Non-Terra Large.

The version with some AIs on both landmasses is called Continents.

Sometimes, practicularly on smaller than standard it's possible to get to the New World pre Caravel.

But when that's not the case the new world won't exactly be uninhabited (unless of course you turned Barbs off ).

Originally posted by lord of the mark
BTW Im now playing Russia on Noble. Im slightly ahead of the top AI.

When you do a terran map, does it always create an old world where all the civs are, and a civless new world?

[Heraclitus]

Actually ancient republics are possible with the Pyramids.

[Unimatrix11]

Which again can, in a histrical perspective, at be at best be described as humorous...

[joncnunn]

I think it's a nod to Civ I where they had the same power.