More civ uniqueness

[Ray K]

You'll notice that civs can start with from zero to four advances, although they all start with two. I am adding/removing some starting advances for different civs to better model how they did in the real world.

After all, some real-world civs did "start late" and this would be a good way to increase difficulty and enhancing historical realism.

I would appreciate any input on this, but I do want to restrict the changes to the "early starters" (extra techs) and the "late starters" that didn't blossom (fewer techs).


Late starters:
=========
Zulu - Warrior Code only
Aztecs - Ceremonial Burial only
Iroquois - Pottery only


Early starters:
==========
Babylonians - Bronze Working, Ceremonial Burial; add Mathematics
Greeks - Alphabet, Bronze Working; add Philosophy
Romans - Warrior Code, Alphabet; add Construction
Egyptians - Ceremonial Burial, Masonry; add The Wheel
Persians - Bronze Working, Masonry; add ???
Indians - Alphabet, Ceremonial Burial; add ???
Chinese - Warrior Code, Masonry; add ???

I need help with an extra tech for the last three. The civs WILL get the benefits of the extra tech at the beginning, so I have to avoid any that will allow unbalanced units. That's why I'd rather let Rome build Colosseums (Construction) instead of Legions (Iron Working) at the beginning.

The Egyptians are the exception. They should get Chariots at the beginning because they were so dominant in the earliest Ancient age.

The whole idea is to vary the strengths of the different civs so that we humans can different an easier or more difficult game by simply choosing to play a different civ.

[Optimizer]

I do not like civs have different conditions at all. I am a Diamondist (from J. Diamond, author of "Guns, germs and Steel") so I am convinced that the starting location should be decisive. The Egyptians, Babylonians and Chinese developed fast because they had got access to arable land, crops, animals and minerals. If the Egyptian leader wants to, they can use their head-start to research chariots.

Different starting locations should have different strategic values assigned to them, which could make influence on your score. For instance, starting out in Australia or tropical Africa would be a great challenge.

[Ray K]

Originally posted by Optimizer
I do not like civs have different conditions at all. I am a Diamondist (from J. Diamond, author of "Guns, germs and Steel") so I am convinced that the starting location should be decisive. The Egyptians, Babylonians and Chinese developed fast because they had got access to arable land, crops, animals and minerals. If the Egyptian leader wants to, they can use their head-start to research chariots.

Fair enough. I, however, like the idea of varying the initial strengths of the civs to correspond roughly to real history. That's really the essence of Civ anyway. Patterned after real history, but still different. Also, this approach allows for a range of difficulty within the same difficulty level of the game which is something I find appealing.

For a bigger challenge, you could play the Zulus or the Iroquois. For a slightly easier game, play the Romans, Egyptians or Greeks.

Firaxis has already taken a major step to civ uniqueness with the special units. Adding or subtracting one starting tech will probably not be that big of a deal anyway.

Different starting locations should have different strategic values assigned to them, which could make influence on your score. For instance, starting out in Australia or tropical Africa would be a great challenge.

Of course, that's not going to happen because nobody will want their final score penalized because they had an optimal starting position.

Starting position will be a challenge no matter what civ you choose. It will also have a greater effect than adding or removing a starting tech. I would still like to continue to giv each Civ a more distinctive flavor and adjusting the starting techs is one way to do that.

Hopefully, Firaxis will allow civ-specific improvements so that I can mod my game (operative word: "my") to restrict some wonders to certain civs.

[IamChinese]

The choice for China should be Ceremonial Burial, it was possibly one of the most important thing in ancient China.

In addition, I think China shouldn't be militaristic at all. When you look at Chinese history as a whole, China didn't really fight many external wars. Most of the time, the country was on the defensive side rather than offensive. I think the only reason for Firaxis to choose militaristic for China was that it wasn't commercial, nor expansionist, nor religious. In my opinion, I would like to replace militaristic with scientific, since China did invent many things that have great influence in human history. (before the Europeans' industrial revolution anyway)

[Cian McGuire]

Yeah, they may not have done much in the way of warring with other empires, but the Chinese have fought invaders, attacked triebs, and each other for thousands of years. China is huge, with a variety of peoples, languages, and cultures, and is very similar to what I'd imagine Europe would have been like if it ever formed a huge continent inclusive empire.

Warlords were a fact of life up until the Communist overthrow.