some revolutionary thoughts

[varus]

lets face it. the entire history of mankind since the end of the stoneage was a struggle between the so called urban civs and the nomadic ones.

that means we have two completely diffent kinds of civ from the beginning of the game. if your civ becomes a nomadic one or an urban,should be determined by the landscape where you make your first settlement.

the main criterium for becoming an urban civ is a river (and in my oppinion this condition is indispensable. each of the ancient civilisation have had access to a river)

transfered to the game that means, you will get some urban-civ points for settling near a river every turn. your tribe is to become an urban civ after accumulating a certain amount of urban-civ points

basic urban civ-points are also generated by


-bounus resources like wheat, cattles or floodplains since they represent domestification and agriculture
and in generally speed up the cultural progress
-irrigation
-roads
-minning

complex urban civ-points

-interaction with foreign civs
-tradeagreements
-leading a victorious war
-city improvements
-wonders
-great leaders

urban civ-points are used to calculate your empire`s cultural borders and they determine which way your urban civ will go in the future

for example:

-if you build a lot of mines, you will aquire great experience in melting technics and therefore you will be able to research more advanced technics like bronzeworks and later on ironworks. if you don`t have any mines, you cannot research these techics.
-if you have a lot of sea-tiles being farmed, you will progress faster in naval-related
topics like mapmaking, which qualifies you to build triremes, wikinglongboats etc.

some words to the civ specific abiliites

these features schould be get depending on the way you build up and manage your civ.
if you focus on building libaries and generous science funding, your civ becomes scientific and further improvements will be cheaper. same to religious. if you prefer
to build barracks and military units and if you use them, you should become militaristic.
building a lot of mines should make you become industrious.
having tradeagreements and luxury resources should make you comercial. descreased costs
for maketplaces and higher profits from trade agreements.

some words to corruption

corruption should be calculated by the time your fastest military unit needs to reach
this city outgoing from your capital. connecting your cities with roads will significantly
reduce corruption.

**********

now i would like to lose some words concerning the nomadic way of playing. eihter you
didnot find a suitable place or you have chosen this way. i thinks it can be very exiting too.

-the size of barbaric tents is at a maximum of 5
-your tents can move (similiar to the speed of your fastest military unit)
-you can see horses from the beginning. by moving your tent on it, you will also get barbaric civ-points and the research path of domestification will be revealed
-each tent generates a certain quantum of barbaric civ-points
-research capabilities are limited to war technics, horsebackriding and the decampmenttechnonoly.
if you have researched this special technology, you can decide to break up your settlements by completely converting your tents into the best military
unit available. for example corverting 5 tents would make you the dschingiskhanof 25 horsemen. now you can start the great march and start conquering one of the old civilisations. if you are controling more than 2/3 of their former territory,
this civilisation will collapse and you overtake this civ
-after a long time of anarchy and unproductivity (maybe 20 turns) your hordes have been assimilated and you can regularly play with this civ.
(until the moment another barbaric horde approaches ante portes)

[Spiffor]

Re: some revolutionary thoughts

Originally posted by varus
lets face it. the entire history of mankind since the end of the stoneage was a struggle between the so called urban civs and the nomadic ones.

Let me disagree. Since the end of the middle ages, the struggle became nearly inexistent because too unbalanaced in the favour of urban Civs. The only remnants of 'nomadic' Civs today are the gypsies and a few tribes in Siberia.
Except for the great invasions of the Huns and the Mongols, there was also not such thing as a great struggle between Urbans and Nomads in the meaning that there has never been an alliance against Nomads. In the colonization of America, for example, the nomads were quite an easy opponent for the Americans who didn't ask for any outside help (The Sioux have only won one battle IIRC).

That means we have two completely diffent kinds of civ from the beginning of the game. if your civ becomes a nomadic one or an urban,should be determined by the landscape where you make your first settlement.

While I'd like to see beefed up Barbarians, and even if I think playing with them would be enjoyable for a change, I don't think they should be such a major feature in a Civ-game. In Civ, A civilization is first understood as a sedentray folk. Since Civ spans from ancient times to the information age, I don't think Nomads/Barbarians should be as important as the Urban Civs. They are probably obsolete a tad too early in Civ3, but they shouldn't have the chance to outlast urban Civs once they are well installed.

[Panag]

hi ,

barbs inside as a civ

they should be able to hold and control cities

have a nice day

[dexters]

Spiffor pretty much got it right.

Static settled Civs have always enjoys great advantages.

The Chinese had superior culture and wealth to the nomadic mongol tribes. The factors why China was conquered by Ghengis Khan is complex, but one reason can be traced back to China's initial introversion.

In anycase, the barbarian "nomadic" hordes of the day were very much like the terrorists of today. They enjoy advantages in terms of their mobility. The only defense the great settled civilizations such as Rome and China can do against them is raise large standing armies in the frontiers and build defensive fortifications like walls.

In the end, the settled Civs won out. There is a reson don't have a horde of mongol tanks going around central asia today , or a tribe of germanic barbarian infantryman rampaging through europe.

[bobbo008]

"The only remnants of 'nomadic' Civs today are the gypsies and a few tribes in Siberia."

Hey, what about the Sammi of Northern Scandinavia? Come on, those guys dominate the... snow... and stuff...

[Aramis]

I'm lost on how a nomadic civ would handle resources. You mention horses (which could move with the civ as a herd), but what do you do for iron? Can't herd ore, and can't carry an iron mine with you. And luxury resources? Realisticly, how could nomads take advantage of incence and spices and et c. without settling near them, and becoming urbanised?

[Aramis]

Another thought: Are you suggesting that nomadic civs' cultural borders be defined by the area within which they move on a regular pattern? This would put resources within reach (as in:"We travel 2 turns to the East to the incense, get enough to trade with, then travel 3 turns to the south to the spices . . . " and so on).
I only see massive advantages for urban civs. Much like history.

[varus]

thanks for your replies

i agree to spiffors oppion, that nomadic civs shouldnot outlast the urban civ. in fact, if you start a civgame and decide to play a barbaric tribe, your only chance to surivive is to qonquer one of the old urban civs and that must have happen before or in the early middle age.
(with warriors, archers, horseman or (mongolian)kights. units, that dont require avanced technis like iron works)

when i am starting a civgame and my settler is located in the endless expanse of the mongolian plain, how can i expect my poor settler to become the ancestor of a great urban civ? probably i would start roaming around, hunting animals. after a while i would recognize that horses are not only delicious meal (vive la france), but also that they can be ridden and used for warefare.
dont forget how many old civilisation were crushed to dust by mounted warriors.

for example the arabs

they emerged in the middle of the 7th century a.d. and within 200 years they conquered the arbabian peninsula and eradicated (greeko)egyptian, babylonian,
persian culture.

not to mention huns and mongols

playing a nomadic civ - does it automatically means having bad odds? i think no

-you are able to yield someones pressure by simply moving your tents away. you can prepare for war all the time (in order to surive you must conquer one urban civ).
or they will come mech. inf. one day.
-converting your tents into a stack of horsemen would be really fun
****

the origin idea behind this is, that i truly believe that the nature influences the way your civ will devellope. what` s your oppion concerning this? which way could it be implemented ? should it be even?


some words to rob

i completely agree with you, that nomadic civs cant handle any kind of resources. if they start making concerns about luxury resources, they probably would become urban civs. the only resource they can use are horses since their nomadic lifestyle greatly benefits from that.
as i said in my post above, a nomadic civ should only be able to

-research wartechics
-search for horses
-build military units
-wandering around with treir tents and units
-prepare for the one last battle

[Panag]

hi ,

, just a small tought , imagine a civ ( small one ) that wonders around , a couple workers , a couple foot units , and you could pay them with lux or resources and they would work for you , ......

have a nice day

[varus]

maybe i would do that. maybe my admiration for your civ is that high, that i simply decide to conquer you and put up a scull pyramid.



dont try to bribe me

[Aramis]

Originally posted by panag
hi ,

, just a small tought , imagine a civ ( small one ) that wonders around , a couple workers , a couple foot units , and you could pay them with lux or resources and they would work for you , ......

have a nice day

Yeah--the idea of vassal states, brought up on other threads. They could be barbarian civs with a limited ability to advance. Their advancement could continue further if they ally themselves, as a vassal, to the human player, or another AI civ. Eventually they become fully assimilated and settle down. A bit like the early goody huts that now and then produce a settler that wants "to join our despotism," but would be more slow and interesting.

[ChrisiusMaximus]

Some interesting ideas here but one thought in my mind is if in fact you became an Urban Civ in the middle ages as desribed then how would you catch up in the tech race ?.

Of course my question is based on the current Civ3 game, am I right in assuming that these ideas are for future Civ like games ?.

In Civ2 you used to aqquire the tech of your enemy when you conquered a city, maybe this would be the answer. And like Panag said the option to hold and control cities would allow a path from nomadic to urban, at least if you can crush the culture problem.

[Panag]

hi ,

goodie huts should produce workers

small wonder ; dry dock and canal

more buildings , like supermarket and firestation

more resources like peat and other types of grain

mobile radar unit

a limit on certain units , for example you could build ten crack elite commandos no more , however when one dies you can build an other one ( they should not be able to go into an army )

more air and naval units

have a nice day

[bobbo008]

"lets face it. the entire history of mankind since the end of the stoneage was a struggle between the so called urban civs and the nomadic ones"

stone age?

that basically takes us through the first few turns...

[Azeem]

How about having barbarian units evolve over time? For example, they start out with Warriors as their basic unit, then in the Middle Ages, they upgrade to Swordsmen, and in the Industrial Age, they upgrade to Guerillas? Also, how about having barbarians form a civilization if they capture a city? That will make them much more of a threat!