Technologically Backwards Civs

[polypheus]

In a good Civ3 game, there certainly needs to a fair number of Civs that are technologically advanced. But for fun, realism, and gameplay, there needs to be regions of the world populated by technologically inferior Civs.

In other words, there should be a "European" equivalent continent, and a "New World" equivalent continent full of backwards Civs.

That way, you could simulate the exploration and conquest of the "New World".

And since nationality/culture is implemented in Civ3, when you wipe out these inferior Civs, they might revolt and revive themselves as new nations but inheriting your technology so they will become the equivalents of USAs and Mexicos.

If there are 16 Civs, you will need a several of them to act as the equivalents of European nations or China who are advanced and well developed but you will also need the equivalent of the Incas, Aztecs, etc. who were still in the stone age when Europeans already had cannons and big wooden ships.

And ideally the backwards Civs are grouped together and the advanced Civs are grouped together geographically.

[JMarks]

Hmmmm

To some extent I agree with you. However, being a history recreater, Civ3 shouldn't be based on strict 'these guys are backward, these are not' idea. What it should be is be pretty easy to be isolated. Not to mention make isolated civs research penalties. Without trade of thoughts and ideas, a civ can only reach so far. This way it will fullfill your idea without being possibly racist. Remember, Europe was backward for some time, but was opened by conquest and trade, then itegration and illumination. Then theres Japan. They were very backward untill Perry opened them up under Filmore. Then they zoomed ahead. Don't forget, advanced countries can become backward themselves. Take China. Advanced throughout the centuries. Then civil wars and European invaders split them up and set them back. Or something like that. They're just now trying to get back. (Thankyou very much Clinton)

Ioanes

[Inverse Icarus]

thats more of a scenario, making someone stupid.

in civ 2, a civ will be technology stupid if they were small, or new (restarted civ).

try it, start a game and keep a civ down to 2 cities.

[KrazyHorse]

Wow. That's the most Eurocentric statement I've heard in a while. This really is a scenario idea, and it was done fairly well in "The Age of Discovery" and similar works. Even civ-specific units are cheating a bit, in my opinion, since there really is no innate reason for the English to be good archers, but this seems all in good fun. There's even less reason for Europeans to be inherently smarter than anybody else. Indeed, as JMarks has pointed out, civilizations tend to swing back and forth, from advanced to backwards. Many of the "Third-World" countries of today were the science powerhouses of yesteryear. The entire Middle East springs to mind. As recently as 1000 A.D. Europe was merely a backwater. The real seats of civilization were around Constantinople, Mecca and Beijing. What rocketed the Europeans to dominance in the next 500 years (and I'm sure some of you may have different ideas) was their ready supply of cheap metals, such as tin and iron, and their desire for the luxury goods which Europe lacked.

[TechWins]

Polypheus you better watch out on what you say. You might offend a lot of people with your non quoted comments of Europeans were better than the Native Americans. Which in some respect is true, but the two main reasons why the Indians got defeated were disease and too much trust. Not neccesarily less technology.


I'll put out some bold statements as well. If "Indians" have to be called "Native Americans" and "Blacks" have to be called "African Americans" then I better be called "European American". Just joking, I'm not racist or anything like that.

[Ralf]

Re: Technologically Backwards Civs

Originally posted by polypheus
In a good Civ3 game, there certainly needs to a fair number of Civs that are technologically advanced. But for fun, realism, and gameplay, there needs to be regions of the world populated by technologically inferior Civs.

No, I dont agree. As many AI-civs as possible should be equal, or next to equal, with the human player. The AI-empires can be larger or smaller - more active or less active, yes. But the smaller and perhaps less active ones should then at least have clever anti-BAB (bigger always better) measures built into them, so that they nevertheless makes a worthwhile competitive contribution in terms of, for example, science & economy. No more forgotten AI left-over civs, please.

Also: perhaps even more important then AI-civs having a decent science-rate: Most (a majority) of all AI-civs (at least under emperor & diety play-level) should have a city-area production-output that is similar with that of any good human civ-player - or at least very close to that. And the more civil-minded AI-civs should have enough city-improvements in order to compete with the any civil-minded strong human Civ-player out there. If the AI-civs in Civ-3 cant achieve that - then everything else is lost as well.

[Ralf]

Originally posted by TechWins
Polypheus you better watch out on what you say. You might offend a lot of people with your non quoted comments of Europeans were better than the Native Americans.

If "better" means better and more important as human beings in front of God, I agree. That would be wrong.

Which in some respect is true, but the two main reasons why the Indians got defeated were disease and too much trust. Not neccesarily less technology.

Please, give me a brake The native indians where technologically backward, and so where the native africans, at the time. Its a plain historical fact.

Also; I dont like the way that 1900-century native indians (or 1900-century native africans) nowadays always is portrayed as victimized peace-lovers (or in the 50:ies, and before: as evil & brutal savages only).

Why these extremes at both ends of the scale?

Both the native indians and the native africans was constantly involved in wars between them, long before the white man came along (as both the europeans and the asians also where, by the way). Its true though, that native indians was (is?) much more in contact with nature, then the white man ever was/is.

[Your.Master]

Originally posted by Ralf
Please, give me a brake The native indians where technologically backward, and so where the native africans, at the time. Its a plain historical fact.

Actually, their tech was merely different. They had advanced architecture that didn't require nearly so much structural support as the Europeans needed, medicine as advanced and probably moreso than the French explorers who catalogued such things, they had the wheel and all sorts of other things but didn't use them because they were useless to them. That they had no gunpowder was Europe's main wartime advantage, and that came from China, not Europe. They had theorized "lost technologies" that the Europeans irrevocably destroyed with many Native Populations (don't put TOO much stock in that, but it's definitely possible). Their ships, weapons, and hunting equipment had unique things adopted by the Europeans. They also had a greater reception to progress, while Europe was just coming out of the "scientists are satanists" mentality.

Besides that, the main problem was, unless you are a creationist, the natives had less then half the time settled on a continent to get crackin' on technology than Europe, Africa, and Asia. Yet they *almost* matched it.

The one huge technological setback for the Natives was the lack of the capability to smelt iron. With that the world would be a much different place, namely the Europeans probably would not have North and South America. You can argue, but smelting iron leads to all of Europe's advantages barring disease.

I can't speak for or against the Africans, I have little knowledge about that area's techs besides the knowledge Ralf uses against them.

[TechWins]

Ralf I agree with you that the Natives were less technologically in some aspects compared to the Europeans. Actually a lot of aspects. What I probably should've said is two contributing factors to the Natives defeat were... The Natives wouldn't have been defeated as easily if "my two reasons weren't factors". Another reason why they were defeated is because of other enemy tribes helping the Europeans. This does kind of play a role in my reason of "too easily to trust", though.

Your.Master, I don't think the lack of time really mattered.

indians (or 1900-century native africans) nowadays always is portrayed as victimized peace-lovers (or in the 50:ies, and before: as evil & brutal savages only).

Don't try to get this meaning out of my statement. I had no intention or showing of me believing Natives as being this way.

[MORON]

What is the fun of killing warriors with tanks.

I say NAH.

[Kc7mxo]

I've played many civ2 games. Lots and lots. So has everyone here. Now, when i play civ2, and the aztecs are all alone in north america and i've had contact with the other five cilivazations for the past 3000 years, whats the typical situation when i meet the aztecs?

They're primitive and they don't have any city walls. I think this is what you're requesting to be built in, but it already exists. Isolated civilizations will not progress as fast because they don't ahve other civlizations to research stuff for them and trade for. I think that with civ3 trade system this will be enhanced even further.

[polypheus]

I definitely agree that in Civ1/2, in which there was no concept of culture/nationality and no concept of strategic resources, and also with only 7 civs max, that technologically backwards civs add nothing to gameplay.

However, all of these features will be there for Civ3. Also we can only hope that at least 16 civs simultaneous Civs are in.

The purpose of having technologically backwards Civs located together is to simulate discovery and colonization of the "New World"-equivalent in a Civ3 game.

Yes, I know that this could be done in scenarios but I think that it should be a prominent feature of the game so that the "Age of Exploration" and "Conquest of the New World" become an almost regularly occuring feature of the game.

Conversely, under certain circumstances, you might even find yourself and your backwards neighbors being invaded from powerful distant Civs such as Aztecs, Incas, etc faced IRL.

It is more historically realistic and fun this way. As long as there are 16 civs, having say, 5, of technologically backwards Civs located together in the "New World" continent far away, there will still be 10 other Civs that are powerful and up to date to match the human player.

[Kc7mxo]

I think that all civs should be created equal.


If the game is designed right, then some civs will just end up more powerful than others, and this is RIGHT and all is as it should be.

[KrazyHorse]

Why the heck should the "Conquest of the New World" become a regularly occurring feature? Once you start determining ahead of time which events should occur, the game ceases being a game. Now it merely replays the single historical thread that this world followed. That being said, Native Americans were without a reasonable doubt less technologically advanced than Europe, the Middle East, North Africa and the Far East in all areas, from around 500 B.C. onwards.Even given iron working capabilities in, say, 1000 A.D., it would have required centuries to catch up to the developed world using their own resources. Now, I'm not saying that this is due to any lack of intellectual sophistication; on the contrary, I believe it entirely due to the isolation of North and South America. Civilization has only been independently developed in less than ten locations. The ones that come to mind are (in chronological order): Minoan, Egyptian, Harappan, Chinese and Olmec. The Minoan civilization began somewhere around 3500 B.C. and the Olmec around 1500 B.C. All of these civilizations began at around 25 degrees of lattitude in a river basin. Coincidence? Doubtful. Every other civilization on the planet owes its beginnings to an earlier civilization. Europe owes its civilization (through about three successors) mainly to the Minoan civilization. It becomes obvious that geographic isolation, by diminishing the sharing of ideas, is the prime determining factor in which cultures develop slowly.

[Inverse Icarus]

i believe that civs will be technologically retarted if they have horrid land, or they are isolated, as it should be.