Does Anyone Change Civs' Color Groups?

[Gatekeeper]

Everyone:

If so, how do you re-arrange the groups? (Not the technical part — I know how to do that ... it's just a matter of changing color group numbers. I mean the actual grouping of civilizationa, ala France, Germany and the Vikings; India, Mongolia and the Sioux)

I've ran over various scenarios in my mind, but I can't come up with any better groupings, so I'd be most appreciate of insights from my fellow 'Polyites.

Gatekeeper

[Bloody Monk]

Is this "change" merely for the sake of making changes?? Is there some reason to do this??

I am trying to understand for what possible reason someone would want to change this. The only thing I can think of is to eliminate the two Civs you most want to avoid by putting them in the group-color that you plan to play.

Monk

[Gatekeeper]

Avoid an AI civ? Hardly. I'm actually trying to help the damn AI by grouping geographically close nations in the same color group so that, instead of blowing each other away and wasting time while the human player gallops ahead, the AI can actually have some room to grow before encountering other AI/human-controlled nations.

I take it you have done no such thing, BM?

Gatekeeper

[Six Thousand Year Old Man]

I take it you are playing on Earth maps... wouldn't it be easier just to change the player starting locations using the map editor? Or of you prefer the realism of real-world locations for each Civ, choose the 'select opponents' option?

Otherwise... as I think about it, there's no real obvious way to give the existing AIs more room to expand. Too many of them start in too small a space (Europe - English, French, Spanish, Vikings, Romans, Russians, Celts, Greeks. And the Babylonians, Persians and Carthaginians start pretty close by). My best suggestion would be renaming 2 of the European nations as Australians and Incas.. and starting them in Australia and S. America (where no other nations start). But then, those 2 would be at a terrain disadvantage. All the better to play the disadvantaged nations yourself, of course

[Bloody Monk]

Gatekeeper

I have never seen that happen. As far as my experience goes, any Civ is likely to be placed anywhere on the map, randomly, with no relation to each other.

The best way to counter the problem you mention--IMHO--is to have Restarts on, in the game settings. Then, if an especially frisky Civ kills another, then that color group will get a respawn. At least then you will still have a full complement of AI's until the 1500a period.

As for getting them to grow and develop, that seems pretty random as well. In the game setup, chose the option that lets you pick the AI. I do recommend the Babs or Zulu, Viking, Egyptians or Aztec, Chin, Mongols--assuming you play as white or orange. Those Civs "seem" to grow better than others; but, nothing is certain.

We can only hope....

Monk

[Gatekeeper]

Originally posted by Six Thousand Year Old Man
I take it you are playing on Earth maps... wouldn't it be easier just to change the player starting locations using the map editor? Or of you prefer the realism of real-world locations for each Civ, choose the 'select opponents' option?

Heh. Yeah, I like playing on Earth maps. And I have done what you suggested above — for instance, I've moved Russia deeper into Eurasia, but still within the heart of its historical "starting point." I also generally choose the "select nations" option when starting games as well. But thanks for the ideas; it's nice to know I'm not the only one who's done this stuff.

Otherwise... as I think about it, there's no real obvious way to give the existing AIs more room to expand. Too many of them start in too small a space (Europe - English, French, Spanish, Vikings, Romans, Russians, Celts, Greeks. And the Babylonians, Persians and Carthaginians start pretty close by). My best suggestion would be renaming 2 of the European nations as Australians and Incas.. and starting them in Australia and S. America (where no other nations start). But then, those 2 would be at a terrain disadvantage. All the better to play the disadvantaged nations yourself, of course

Hmm ... that's an idea (renaming some of the nations)! I might try that. As for terrain disadvantage, there is none, as I've "terraformed" the jungles of South America and the deserts of Australia into a more balanced mix of land types on most of my Earth maps.

There's really no "disadvantaged" nations left in my copy of Civ II. I've altered most of my maps so that the AI has a fighting chance. About the only disadvantaged nation left is the Celts, and that's 'cause I'm not moving them off of the British Isles (although I have moved Britain itself to Australia on one of my maps). *shrug* I just rationalize it away as "another" Earth that my games are played on.

Gatekeeper

[Gatekeeper]

Originally posted by Bloody Monk
The best way to counter the problem you mention--IMHO--is to have Restarts on, in the game settings. Then, if an especially frisky Civ kills another, then that color group will get a respawn. At least then you will still have a full complement of AI's until the 1500a period.

Perhaps. It's odd, though, playing on an Earth map where Persia gets conquered in 1500 BC, and America pops up in South America, rather than at its historical spot in North America. "Frisky civ"? Heh. I like that term. "Those damn Mongols are too FRISKY for their own good!"

As for getting them to grow and develop, that seems pretty random as well. In the game setup, chose the option that lets you pick the AI. I do recommend the Babs or Zulu, Viking, Egyptians or Aztec, Chin, Mongols--assuming you play as white or orange. Those Civs "seem" to grow better than others; but, nothing is certain.

We can only hope....

Monk

Tell me about it. "Will it or will it not grow" is one of the greatest things *and* most frustrating things about a Civ II game. The unpredictibility factor goes both ways.

Odds are, I'm going to try and change up the color groupings a bit. If not, then maybe STYOM's idea to rename and relocate a Civ or two. Or a third option is to just leave the program alone before I alter and unalterable rule and the thing won't work properly.

Gatekeeper

[Scouse Gits]

Nope - although there are civs I don't like meeting - the english for example - I just play it the way it is....

Stu

[anti patriot]

ive done it, i made the celts peru and the babs iraq, but i never made anyone aus, mainly 'cause of the desert and i dont 'terraform' much.

[offa]

Originally posted by Bloody Monk
Is this "change" merely for the sake of making changes?? Is there some reason to do this??

Monk

I am sorry if this seems a bit silly, but I am really a civ3 player who makes occasional forays into the amazing world of civ2, which I don't really understand.

From my memory of Solo's ELG guide I thought that playing as a purple civ makes an early landing a bit easier as you don't have to gift everything to someone else. I certainly always used to like playing as the celts (!) and so I can see at least one reason why it might be nice to change their colour.

There must however be several thousand other ways to improve my game that would be more helpful.

[Bloody Monk]

Originally posted by offa

From my memory of Solo's ELG guide I thought that playing as a purple civ makes an early landing a bit easier as you don't have to gift everything to someone else.

Not exactly, offa. While it is true that once you become Supreme you will be your Key Civ, that alone will not make the game easier.

--As your own Key Civ you can never be in the bonus position, a DISadvantage.
--Regular gifting to all Civs is necessary to keep relations at a high level, which you will want to maintain, especially if you are running things lean with NO garrison units.

Thus, I think changing color associations is a bit much, though there may be other reasons for doing it that I am not aware of. But, your mileage may vary and having the most fun from the game is the main thing.

Monk

[offa]

Originally posted by Bloody Monk


Not exactly, offa.

--As your own Key Civ you can never be in the bonus position, a DISadvantage.

Monk

Thanks. Civ2 sure is a complicated game. , but great fun.

[Bloody Monk]

Originally posted by offa


Thanks. Civ2 sure is a complicated game. , but great fun.

No problem; happy to be of assistance. And that is how I saw my role, to aid , not to criticise. I would not want to discourage you from posting, for, I completely agree, Civ2 is great fun. If you are studying Solo's ELG guide and the Great Library (topped in the Strat Forum) your understanding of the game will deepen...and I think, so will your fun.

Monk

[offa]

Originally posted by Bloody Monk


No problem; happy to be of assistance. And that is how I saw my role, to aid , not to criticise.
Monk

Any assistance is welcome indeed. I am completely in awe of these early landing games which I know you are a master of, and am no where near duplicating them. Their brilliance is what draws me back to attempt Civ2. My latest attempt has just terminated after I was beaten to Copernicus at a date when Solo was nearly launching. I can't seem to manage unhappiness well enough, or trade. Civ3 is like a walk in the park next to this. My brain is full.

[Bloody Monk]

Well, thank you. I had some success but I do not consider myself a master.

Continueing that metaphor (and hoping not to sound pretentious), I think there is a solution to your "full brain" problem. Empty your mind, Grasshopper, and begin again. Simplify your thinking. Especally, purge any Civ3 ideas; it is a different game. Eliminate the unnecessary or untimely moves. "Trade" must become a state of mind. Trade is the engine that drives the pace of research, and research, rapid research, is the only way to Land Early.

Happy Civ'ing!!

Monk