Civilizaton Abilities

[Inverse Icarus]

god. there sure is a lot of anti-communism in this world.

i got a kid in trouble at my school this year (im only in high school, going to be a senior), he wrote in the yearbook: "Dislikes: Communists".

i went to the principal, and said that was like someone saying "Dislikes: Blacks, Jews, Homos, Hispanics, Asians, etc"

and the kid got suspended and the yearbook company got repramanded.

i never liked that kid anyway.

and about america. leave america alone please. i don't take shots at your nation, wheverer you're from. infact there are a few choice countried i would actually consider moving to. Dubbya isn't helping.

i know there are a lot of whiteb-red hicks in our country raised to believe we are better than the rest of the world. but they are nothing more than white-bred hicks. so calm down.

there are also some gallant patriots, like SerapisIV. notice how he's not a **** towards other nations, just strongly liking his own.

you hicks could learn a lesson here.

[SerapisIV]

Originally posted by UberKruX
there are also some gallant patriots, like SerapisIV. notice how he's not a **** towards other nations, just strongly liking his own.

God Bless America !!! Land of Ebonics and Hillary Clinton I love the US and will be the first person to point out its made a lot of mistakes and isn't perfect, but it is still the greatest place in the world. Especially geographically (try and find a more diverse and beautiful country).

Well back on-topic, take the Bill of Rights interpretations stuff over to OT. Here I'll even provide a link:

Apolyton OT Forum

America was founded (ie ealry colonists) as a religious country, but by the 1800s wasn't really much more religious then the rest of Europe, except there were no restrictions. And now, while many American people might be religious, this is definitely a secular country. Here's proof:

[SerapisIV]

dp, sorry

[SerapisIV]

Originally posted by Wille
Please don't start discussing the similarity between cultures as its sure to turn into an OT topic with alot of angry feelings and spam. On the culture groups, I think you are correct Serapis.

Not my intention, I'm just trying to figure out the how culture is gonna work. Here's a good question, if two Civs are similar culturally, will they be more likely to work together or be natural opponents? The French and English fought on and off for hundreds of years against each other. Yet are they more likely to ally against say the Indians or Americans (assuming the Americans are considered culturally different in Civ3)

[jsw363]

Does anyone else think that it's sort of ironic that religious is included in a civ's characteristics, but civs never get the chance to express that religion? Religion's not at all a part of the game (like expansion, commerce, military, etc.) but it's a trait. Weird...

[SerapisIV]

It'd be damn tough to include the rise and fall of different religions and also the different nations, besides, how do you include benefits of one religion versus the other, especially including all the hundreds of religions that must have existed over the past 6,000 years.

[Inverse Icarus]

Speaker KruX of the Roman Republic of Polythesists

[Footie Mad]

Originally posted by SerapisIV


Here's a good question, if two Civs are similar culturally, will they be more likely to work together or be natural opponents? The French and English fought on and off for hundreds of years against each other. Yet are they more likely to ally against say the Indians or Americans (assuming the Americans are considered culturally different in Civ3)

The way I see it is that you have to fight somebody, if the only ones available are people who are similar to you then you fight them. Only in the face of something even more different and unlike themselves they would ally and fight the new threath.
Example: England and France fight for a hundred years, suddenly the Aztecs invade their continent and become the new " bad guy", im pretty sure France and England rather would ally with eachother than with the Aztecs since their culture is more similar.

Now a question that arises is if this is implemented in the game, or perhaps my theories are totally wrong and it shouldn't be in the game at all. I would like this to be included in the game somehow, and by "this" I mean that culture of the same kind cooperate and have better relations with eachother. I dont want civ to turn into some culture war or something but it should be a factor.

[Alexander I]

It may just be me, and it may have been said already, but aren't these special abilities just a revamping of the CivII "attitude" ratings with a few bonuses added?

In other words, isn't this just the whole

rational - aggressive
civilized - militaristic
perfectionist - expansionist

thing all over again? I know they've added special things, which makes it interesting, and I'll enjoy playing with them, but are they really all that new?

[Phutnote]

I'm not sure, but I think these traits will be used to emphasis the leader settings. In other words, the militaristic leader gets the aggressive bonuses (rewards for behaving the way he's, well, programmed to behave). It'll just make them a little more proficient at being conquering enslaving bastards, just as the commercial bonus will make the more entrepreneurial civ wealthier.

All the civ settings seem a little arbitrary. I think the Aztec one works well (militaristic and religious) but I'm not so sure about the American setting or the French (industrious and commercial). You could argue the case for Commercial americans or religious (orthodox) russians or industrious/commercial japanese. And with an editor, I'm guessing you can switch it any way you'd like.

Perhaps Firaxis looked at the behaviour of each nation in it's golden age?

Phutnote

[Kc7mxo]

Thanks uberkrux. Your gallant politeness towards us hicks will be remembered. Even though i'm just a bigoted hick, i'm sure that suspending that young man for his expressing his beliefs was the perfect solution. Us hicks are nasty fellows. Judging from your post, should we replace the dislikes communists with dislikes hicks?

Now. That I've vented a bit of irritation, i got something to say about this civilization abilities garbage.

Its utterly silly. Who is Firaxis to assign traits and abilities to constantly changing cultures and nations some of whom have existed in one form or another millennia.

I just don't see how we can play a strategy game where the strategy is being unbalanced by silly nationalistic bonusues. I didn't like them in alpha centauri and i won't like them in civ3.

Fortunately, firaxis has understood that not all of us want this and has provided the option to turn it off.



And one more mention, if the aztecs invaded europe during the hundred years war, both the french and the english would probably have jumped to make them their allies. Just as the enemy's of the aztecs allied with cortez.

[Warm Beer]

Hey, Kc7mxo! How are things in Walla Walla? It is hot and dry here in Spokane...

Although I am not against the idea of the civ specific abilities, i too believe that the ability to turn them off is a good thing... different strokes for different folks.

Phutnote brought up the idea that these settings may help players (and hopefully the AI) to be more efficient at thier play style....and anything to help the AI perform better is just fine with me, IMHO.

[TechWins]

And one more mention, if the aztecs invaded europe during the hundred years war, both the french and the english would probably have jumped to make them their allies. Just as the enemy's of the aztecs allied with cortez.

Yes that is true but I don't think Willie was intending that. I think what Willie meant was that if the Aztecs came along and settled in Europe the French and English would probably put aside their differences and ally with each other to rid themselves of the Aztecs. I don't think Willie meant that the English and French would ally with each other during a war to kick out the Aztecs. Am I right Willie?

You're right Alexander, it's just a little more advanced system than the Civ2 one. It's not a SMAC like system in my opinion because there are not any negative effects. Not having the negative effects means that civs can still take any direction in leading their civ but will most likely follow the direction their special abilities have given them. I believe this was the same way in Civ2 as well. The Mongols in Civ2 were militariastic so they built a lot of units, the Aztecs are militariastic in Civ3 so they will build a lot of units plus get a slight military bonus (which can be turned off by the rules.txt not in game screen, only civ-specific units can be turned off in the game screen, that's all that has been confirmed by Firaxis).

Who is Firaxis to assign traits and abilities to constantly changing cultures and nations some of whom have existed in one form or another millennia.

Who is Firaxis to signify Abraham Lincoln as the leader of the Americans, who is Firaxis to say that the Japanesse are militariastic considering that have been a peaceful nation for many years while having some military conflicts like most nations, who is Firaxis to say that culture will determine your borders, who is Firaxis to say that Fundamentalism isn't a gov choice in Civ3, who is Firaxis to make a third game about Civ? These are all questions that Firaxis has the right to determine, so stop complaining!

[korn469]

Its utterly silly. Who is Firaxis to assign traits and abilities to constantly changing cultures and nations some of whom have existed in one form or another millennia.

the way i see it, the cultural bonuses and the civ specific units are intended to reflect each civ at it's height, that is why civ specific units trigger the golden age

hopefully the golden ages will help simulate the rise and fall of civs, and will help some civs come from the back of the pack to become the most dominant civ in a short amount of time

i personally think that civ specific abilities are a good thing, they produce a more vibrant and varied choice amongst civs and beats

rational - aggressive
civilized - militaristic
perfectionist - expansionist

hands down, not only does it fit in with the rest of the game, it gives players more choices to make...in the same scenario you'd have to play slightly different against the romans compared to the greeks because of civ specific abilities...that should mean civ3 will have even more gameplay in it than civ2 did

plus you can cut it off

i have a slight quibble and that is in my opinion not all of the civ abilities accurately reflect the civ in question at it's height (implied by it's civ specific unit) but since these traits can either be cut off or edited with the scenario editor it isn't a big deal