Announcement

**jasev** · December 8, 2001, 14:40

Who knows, someone might make a mod where America becomes available only @ 1700's, or where Rome starts declining after a certain year in the game...

I think this is an idea for Civilization IV

**Earendil** · December 11, 2001, 20:42

Perhaps what is needed is a a mechanic that effects all empires in the mid 18th centurey to the mid 19th century (1750-1850) where if your approval rating isnt above X then there is a chance for a rebelion in a far off part of your Civilisation.

This means a new Civ is formed and takes control of some of your cities and is at war with you. This new civ will be liked by the orgininal civs enemies/rivals so it will be easy for it to ask for help in the war. This way there is a possiblity of an American Civ that makes everyone could be happy with. You make a splinter civ for all the original civs.

Oh you can make the chance for the rebellion at different times for each of the different civs. Also the closer your empire is to is capital/capitals the less likely that city will rebel.

What does evertone think of this?

**ntyatecafe** · December 12, 2001, 10:11

Originally posted by Earendil
Perhaps what is needed is a a mechanic that effects all empires in the mid 18th centurey to the mid 19th century (1750-1850) where if your approval rating isnt above X then there is a chance for a rebelion in a far off part of your Civilisation.

This means a new Civ is formed and takes control of some of your cities and is at war with you. This new civ will be liked by the orgininal civs enemies/rivals so it will be easy for it to ask for help in the war. This way there is a possiblity of an American Civ that makes everyone could be happy with. You make a splinter civ for all the original civs.

Oh you can make the chance for the rebellion at different times for each of the different civs. Also the closer your empire is to is capital/capitals the less likely that city will rebel.

What does evertone think of this?

I LOVE IT!!! It could be set that during such & such timeperiod, if your corruption level is above so much for so long & there are more unhappy or content citizens than happy ones, then the possibility of rebel colonies comes into play. I like it!

The colonies would basically branch off into their own civ, and relationships are formed depending on your reaction to it (i.e., if you accept them as a new civ, and treat them as equals, then they relate extremely well to you, but if you attack them, and try to re-absorb them then they start making alliances with other civs/possibly even your enemies). Great idea!

Y'know, I'm kind of thinking that the timeline could even be left out of this idea, and instead just use the corruption/happy faces as a rule (corruption > X, unhappy(content) faces > happy, for a period > x turns/years = rebelling colonies). What do you think? It certainly would make gameplay much more interesting!

**Earendil** · December 12, 2001, 17:10

well the reason why I added the time line is that rebelion is usualy a product of the times as well as corruption and discontent. It was the enlightened period that made the American rebelion of 1776 possible. It was the idea of equality between all men (not an american idea by the way philosiphers of the time came up with that one). The age power of England at the time vs the power of her mercantile houses.
The fact is the rebelion would not of taken place a 100 yrs earlier or a 100 yrs later. Even if we ignore population sizes.

I came up with the eastern roman empire Byzanteium (sp?) a round 100 ad to 400 ad. (the earlier in the game we make the critical era for a civ the longer it has to be.)

For japan you could have one of the warlords of the waring states period show up.

Some of these splinter groups will have to be non historical non culturaly conected

China ??? ---Korea?
Aztec -- Myans
Zulus - ??? whats the tribe of the Anc that Mandela is from
Germans - Polish?
French - ???
India - Pakistan
Babylon- Assiarians
Persia - Turks??
Egypt - Kingdon of Sudan (this is where all the Black pharos come from Cleapatra wasnt black [not a racist statement] she wasnt even egyption she was part of a GREEK ruleing class set up by Alexander the Great. But the Kingdom of Sudan at one point ruled all of Egypt and at other times Egypt rules all of the Sudan very fluid in later Egyptian history)
Iroquois-Mohawks? or Huron
Greek-???
Russia-the ukraine ???

Ok so the question is who Replaces America as the 16 Civ and then who is thier splinter civ?

I also this this rebellion should be based on over all aprroval rating because this is not a stat the most people worry about as lomg as thier citys dont rebel they couldnt care what thier approval rating is except in the late part of the game when every thing goes to making your citizens happy for that higher score. This way its more likly to sneak up on you. heehee

**ntyatecafe** · December 12, 2001, 17:51

Ok so the question is who Replaces America as the 16 Civ and then who is thier splinter civ?

The Confederate States of America! hehehe....

Seriously though, the C.S.A. was formed not to protect the slave industry (which wouldn't have lasted but 1 - 2 more decades anyways) but because many people felt that the Union was taking power away from the states. The Union was in fact created to be a servant of the states, which were servants of the people, in time the Union gained more power, and the states - fearing that the Union would take all power away from them - attempted to use the ultimate right of a state...the right to secede from the Union. The Union made its power grab then, and the result ended up being a reversal of the original intention...instead of the Union serving the states, the states became, while not servants of the Union, significantly less powerful.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a "South's gonna rise again" kind of redneck, but I do enjoy learning & living the history of that time period. (I do some Civil War reenactments).

But, case in point, you could do one of two things...either a massive, native American uprising (which never significantly happened, and wouldn't have really affected the colonies except for more barbarians), or you could actually do the Civil War, with the CSA as the splinter faction.

**Earendil** · December 12, 2001, 18:35

I know what caused the civil war and i know that at first there was no mention of the slave issue in the propaganda of either side. It was Lincon who made the wor into a moral fight. That is the genius of his handleing of the war. He changed what the north was fighting for. Shrewd.

What I'm getting at is that with these new mechanics there is not going to be a american civ unless they rebel from the England. So who replaces them???

**Andy91** · December 13, 2001, 03:16

England 1500 years? France 2000? check your history-
The Roman Empire didn't fall until 476- France should start around then, roughly, and England not until around 500 years after that. If you change the math to reflect the history, you end up with more even turn counts. Also, try calculating when the civs were at their heights.

**ntyatecafe** · December 13, 2001, 09:41

What I'm getting at is that with these new mechanics there is not going to be a american civ unless they rebel from the England. So who replaces them???

Okay, I think I understand now...but let me clarify. Are you asking for a different original Civ (one to be one of the 16 options at the start)? If that is the case, then how about the Vikings, the Norsemen? They might make a better barbarian culture than a full civ, but there is a lot of interesting things about them (I love Norse mythology).

In any case, you bring up a good point (

)which I haven't considered...I'll have to think about it (I hate thinking...it makes my head hurt!).

**Veracitas** · December 13, 2001, 16:57

Originally posted by Earendil

For japan you could have one of the warlords of the waring states period show up.

Some of these splinter groups will have to be non historical non culturaly conected

China ??? ---Korea?
Aztec -- Myans
Zulus - ??? whats the tribe of the Anc that Mandela is from
Germans - Polish?
French - ???
India - Pakistan
Babylon- Assiarians
Persia - Turks??
Egypt - Kingdon of Sudan (this is where all the Black pharos come from Cleapatra wasnt black [not a racist statement] she wasnt even egyption she was part of a GREEK ruleing class set up by Alexander the Great. But the Kingdom of Sudan at one point ruled all of Egypt and at other times Egypt rules all of the Sudan very fluid in later Egyptian history)
Iroquois-Mohawks? or Huron
Greek-???
Russia-the ukraine ???

some of these splinter groups make no sense!
so, we're gonna make all of these far-fetched splinter civs just to appease the america haters/america lovers, because England--> America seems to be one of the only ones that actually make sense. I know you said that "Some of these splinter groups will have to be non historical non culturaly conected" but what is the point...if you're creating this splinter groups to more closely model history in the first place (the America case), then isn't it counterproductive to make things less historically accurate?

China--> Korea // (being korean myself, I have obvious personal objections, but those not withstanding..) yah right, Koreans are of the Mongoloid branch, whereas most Chinese are not; also, how could Korea 'break away' from China if it were never a colony?

Aztec--> Mayans //wtf? Mayan Empire died out long before the Aztec Empire...if anything, it would make more sense the other way around, but still, it doesn't...

Zulu--> (you mean Thembuland?) //i don't know much about zulu history, so i won't comment

Germans --> Polish //arrgghh...I really don't agree w/this, and I don't think a Pole would appreciate it, either. Poles are slavs, Germans are not; it would make more sense for them to come from Russia (though I doubt Poles would like that, either) since through a lot of its history, Poland was engulfed by Russia, Prussia, and Austria.

India--> Pakistan //lol, a Pakistani would kill you if you claimed that Pakistan was a breakaway government of the current India....both India and Pakistan were created at the same time when Lord something or other (i forget his name) broke up the Empire of India and had no idea what to do with both Muslims and Hindus fumin' down his neck...

Babylon--> Assyrians //I could be wrong, but doesn't the Assyrian Empire PREDATE Babylon?

Persia --> Turks //turks come from the Mongolian steppes; Iranians would make more sense, but then again, they're pretty much the same thing.

Egypt--> Kingdom of Sudan //no comment

Iroquois--> Mohawks, maybe Huron //I guess this makes sense since Joseph Brant was a Mohawk. But, nowadays, the Iroquois are divided between those at Grand River (which include all nations) and the Onandaga

Greek

Russia --> Ukraine //haha, ask a "HaHol" what he thinks of that...

I'm American, so maybe I'm crazy, but I think you should just leave the game and the Americans the way they are. If you really want to be historically accurate, then we'd have civ games starting off with Sumerians, Indians, Egyptians, and Chinese.......The sumerian player would play a few turns before being forced to retire; at certain dates, new civilisations would rise and fall, some splintering off, some just magically appearing

in the end, the chinese and indian player would have played the most, and most likely won because they racked up the most score for being around since 4000 b.c......

right.......

On another note, i wouldn't mind seeing something like this--breakaway civs, civs popping up as the game progresses--in a mod or scenario. But to modify the standard civ game like this seems crazy to me...

**Veracitas** · December 13, 2001, 18:16

another quick note about Russia and Ukraine:

it would actually make more sense for it to go Ukraine--> Russia, because it was the Kievan Principalities and lesser city-states that first formed the basis for modern Russian culture. And if Ukraine was "The Frontier" for the Byzantines--who transmitted the Cyrillic alphabet through Ukraine and through Ukraine, Russia--then imagine what Moscow was during this period...(pretty much nothing all that important until the fortified Kremlin was built to withstand the Golden Horde, whereupon it became the foremost Slavic city-state). So, Mama Rucya owes a lot to her little Ukrainian brother (not so little, considering Ukraine is largest European country, discounting bi-continental Russia)...

**Veracitas** · December 13, 2001, 18:23

Originally posted by Veracitas
On another note, i wouldn't mind seeing something like this--breakaway civs, civs popping up as the game progresses--in a mod or scenario. But to modify the standard civ game like this seems crazy to me...

but....I would have serious objections to the system proposed by Earendil....i would have objections to any model where the Koreans came out of China as if we were their little brothers (as, indeed, they called us for a long time) or, worse yet, their sons....Koguryo owned the land that is now Beijing, for Christ's sake, and was THE foremost power in Asia for a while (caused collapse of the dynasty before Tang) and was only wiped out when the Tang dynasty allied itself with Shilla (another Korean kingdom) against Koguryo.

**Earendil** · December 15, 2001, 19:25

The problem is that you are looking at this the wrong way. The majority of the slinter groups are not racial or culturaly connected as i said. So get that notion firmly planted. I'm not saying Korea is a part of China and If your so offended by that then make it a spinter group of Japan.

Some of the splinter groups represented peoples ruled by the orgininal (civ3 original here people) civ like german/prussia ruled parts of poland. I'm not saying that poles are german i'm saying they are rebelling from thier foriegn rulers. So putting Korea under japan is accurate as Japan ruled Korea and this would show the rebelion of the Korean people against thier occupiers. I however wanted Korea to have a chance to join the game earlier.

What the Idea of this is is that all empires have to have this chance to have a rebelion. If it works. There are few cases of rebelions ever succeding so I had to take other near by empires and make them the splinter group. Thats all i did. I was in no way ment to be a statement on who was part of who and what came first. It was a simple means to get 16 new empires into the game. This is why I put a disclaimer on it. So please get over your offended feelings and see this for what it is. If people come up with better Ideas for splinter groups then they can be used I silply put in a lot of races that i would like to see in.

You peole need to stop being offended as such small slights. Read the DISCLAMERS they are there so that you understand that the authour realizes that things are not perfect.

**Mongoloid Cow** · December 15, 2001, 20:27

The Ainu would be a good splinter group for Japan. Austria would be a good splinter group for Germany.

**siredgar** · December 17, 2001, 00:14

--

The Japanese ruled Korea for only 35 years (1910-1945) of its 5,000 years in existence.

Indeed, prior to the 16th century, the Korean civilization was far superior to that of their island neighbors for a long time.

In fact, many scholars argue that Koreans provided the roots of ancient Japanese civilization (introducing distinctly Korean ways of rice farming, pottery, and even religion-- later known as "Shintoism", among other things).

The Chinese considered the Koreans the only other civilized people in Asia and often described their country as "the scholar-nation". On the other hand, for a while, they called Japan "the nation of dwarf pirates" because of the frequent barbarian raids originating from the islands.

--

The Germans invaded Poland in 1939. They pulled out in 1945. Hardly a reason for Poland to be a splinter group of Germany.

Announcement

The Science of Civs

The Science of Civs

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment