The difference between Athens and Sparta

[Lorizael]

Oh hi!

I’m Lorizael. You may remember me from such spam threads as “Finally” and “Introducing....”

But today (woohoo, finally unbanned!) I’m talking to you about something very important. Something that affects each and everyone one of us.

Culture. Ahhh, yes, culture, that which binds so many together and causes so many wars. In the latest of the Civ series, Civ III, Firaxis has implemented (and if I might say wonderfully) a concept of culture. It also goes together with Civ traits, Unique Units, Nationality and borders.

However, in Civ III you play a specific civilization with specific abilities, so that you can re-create that civilization. And this is definitely fun but there are players (and I know this has been discussed before) that want to actually start from scratch and create their own civilization.

The difference between Athens and Sparta?
The difference is that Athens is known best for its scientific and philosophical achievements whereas Sparta is known for its massive and elite armies.

Why?

Because very early on Sparta did something different from the rest of the city-states. Instead of colonizing (mostly) uninhabited areas when overpopulated, they decided to conquer another nearby people, and use their land and people. Because they were constantly afraid of unrest, they built a huge army to defend themselves against revolt and almost completely eliminated culture, science, and trade by building this army. They became very isolationist and feared for their rarely used (because they didn’t want to leave Sparta undefended) army.

All this because they decide to subjugate instead of colonize.

What I propose for Civ (IV I guess…) is there not just be culture points, but points for each individual traits (and I think there should be more traits). At the beginning you would have no points in any traits and would essentially not have a culture or identity. But by performing certain actions your point total would go up. For example if a worker improved a tile you would get a check in the Industrious column, and each turn your industrious rating would go up by one.

Here are (some) examples of things that would up your trait rates.

Militaristic: Winning battles, conquering cities, building barracks, military units, etc…

Commercial: Making trade agreements, building roads to resources, building harbors, marketplaces, etc…

Industrious: Building tile improvements, roading strategic resources, building factories, etc…

Religious: Building temples, instituting state religion (an idea I have similar to the government system), cathedrals, etc…

Expansionist: Building exploratory units, harbors, airports, etc…

Scientific: Having scientist specialists, high science rate, building libraries, universities, etc…

Obviously the point values for individual actions would have to vary otherwise some cultures would be too easy or difficult to acquire. Anyway, whatever were the two highest point totals at any given time would be the two traits your civilization had. This could slowly change over time as you stop doing one thing and start another. There could also be negative actions for certain traits (disbanding military units for Militaristic civs).

This way your culture and nationality would develop and change with the times.

I also think that culture should increase based on your civ traits. Therefore a Commercial civilization only increases its unique culture when buildings harbors and such. Though libraries would always increase culture (all the books are about trade goods…).

I think that if a city or region within your civilization took a radically different route as far as culture (compared to the rest of your civ) it might break away and form its own civilization. This has happened many times in history (United States Civil War).

I’m not sure how Unique Units and Golden Ages would work here, they might need to be scrapped. Maybe you could keep the peaceful golden ages and if you build a wonder that corresponds to your current culture, you enter a golden age. Though as always only one golden age per civilization.

Wow, I’ve written way too much. Just glad to be back. Someone respond?

Oh and NO SPAMMING!

[Mars]

Interesting point, you could just keep the UUs, they shouldn't effect your idea. it would be good if your Great Leaders would follow your US (unique style). It would make an interesting game and make you even more connected with your civ

[Blake]

Interesting post. However I feel that playstyle is sufficent to shape your civilisation.
For example, you build a marketplace, so are now making more commerce income. Your civilisation has become more commerical, no need to have some arbitary trait changes to show this...

Also, having traits change could annoy and frustrate some players, who would consider it a form of rating. It could easily detract from the enjoyment when the game falsely accuses your civ of being Militaristic, when you really consider it Commericial. Any algorithms to determine trait changes would probably be sub optimal, in the views of some players anyway. I think this alone makes it a bad idea. Some players simply wont like it, and most wiould probably be annoyed at one stage or another.

Lastly Small wonders will have this effect anyway, for example building several Banks allowing you to build Wall street. The small wonders you build will help shape your empire, while the pre-req to build them is determined by your playstyle.

[Lorizael]

You make some good points, Blake.

This is one of those things that realists (like the people making GGS) want to implement. I like realism to some extent (though of course not at the detriment of gameplay) and I like the idea of your civilization changing.

Don't get me wrong, I think Civ III will be awesome, I just like my idea better

The things is, why does a Civ start out as Militaristic or Commercial? in the very beginning there wasn't much difference between the Chinese and Egyptians, despite their distance from eachother. It's their landscape (to a large degree) and actions that shapes them and makes the unique.

Hey Blake, you're one of the guys who participated in my spamfest aren't you?

I've also felt that religion should have a bigger role in Civ. What does everyone else think?

[Blake]

While it does make a certain sense traits should evolve - I guarentee it would annoy many players (Ever played Black&White with it's alignment rating system??).

It could be argued (but I wont...) that the values of a civilization were often what made them distinctive... or another way of putting it, before a Civ had any values it was just a bunch of Barbarians.

Note: Values basically equals civilization traits...

Religion... I dont really have an opinion. I dont think it needs to be expanded on in Civ3. (Maybe in Civ4...)

Yep, and I partook in the Spamfest. (But I shall partake in no more spamming)

[CygnusZ]

Historically innacurate.

Remember that the Pelopenisian (yeah yeah, spelled wrong) war took place because of Athen's increaseing military presence across the Greece. The problem was that the Spartan alliance felt threatened by Athen's whom continued conquest and enslavement of lands. Athen's in reply said that they firmly believed that threatening Sparta was appropriate because a the success of a state should be based upon the might of its military.

In other words, the difference between Sparta and Athen's had more to do with the internal cultural issues rather than outlook on international affairs. I would say that Athen's is a militarestic democracy whereas Sparta is an militarestic dictatorship.

[Lorizael]

Originally posted by CygnusZ
Historically innacurate.

Remember that the Pelopenisian (yeah yeah, spelled wrong) war took place because of Athen's increaseing military presence across the Greece. The problem was that the Spartan alliance felt threatened by Athen's whom continued conquest and enslavement of lands. Athen's in reply said that they firmly believed that threatening Sparta was appropriate because a the success of a state should be based upon the might of its military.

In other words, the difference between Sparta and Athen's had more to do with the internal cultural issues rather than outlook on international affairs. I would say that Athen's is a militarestic democracy whereas Sparta is an militarestic dictatorship.

Alright well that's just info I got out of my history textbook. However Athens and Sparta's military differed. Sparta had lots of land based military whereas Athens had a larger Navy. And after Alexander died, Athens remained mostly neutral during all those conflicts, and that's when its culture and science prospered.

However, that's not the main point of this thread. Like my ideas?

[Mongoloid Cow]

Lorizael, I'm confused. Do you start off with no traits, and then your actions create them for you. For example; you are the Romans, and you decide to trade and invest in science instead of conquering or expanding, which would make you Comercial and Scientific. Then one day your attacked by the Americans or English or whoever, and you fight them back and conquer their civ, and suddenly you find yourself Militaristic and expansionist?

Or do you start off with the pre-defined traits and they might change by your actions?

Or do you start off with no traits or trait-related abilities, while the AI does, so you know that the Babylonians are backstabbers, or the Romans are out to monopolise, while your strategy develops your civilisation traits later on?

[Lorizael]

Originally posted by Mongoloid Cow
Lorizael, I'm confused. Do you start off with no traits, and then your actions create them for you. For example; you are the Romans, and you decide to trade and invest in science instead of conquering or expanding, which would make you Comercial and Scientific. Then one day your attacked by the Americans or English or whoever, and you fight them back and conquer their civ, and suddenly you find yourself Militaristic and expansionist?

Or do you start off with the pre-defined traits and they might change by your actions?

Or do you start off with no traits or trait-related abilities, while the AI does, so you know that the Babylonians are backstabbers, or the Romans are out to monopolise, while your strategy develops your civilisation traits later on?

No one starts out with any traits. The only reason you would pick Babylonians is because you like the name. Even the AI would have to develop over time.

And while in the beginning the first actions you take would define you immediately, as point totals accrued, it would take longer to change who you are.

If you did a little conquering very late in the game, it wouldn't have much impact. But if you went from peacful and trading with everyone, and then went on a conquering spree, taking cities left and right, you would turn militaristic and expansionist.

[Mongoloid Cow]

Now I get it!!! Seems like a good idea for Civ 4. They'd better start a suggestions forum for civ 4 soon!

[player1]

If CIV3 would have a scripting language,
I could make a such code.

[Skanky Burns]

Welcome back Lorizael
Dont get yourself banned again, your posts are entertaining to read

About your idea: Im split between liking it and hating it On one hand, starting out with no specific traits leaves you with a game of 'generic' enemy AIs, with no unique personality whatsoever. On the other hand, without your idea, a civ is stuck with their predetermined traits, no matter their actual playing style. A religious civ might spend their entire game without building a temple, or an expansionist civ could be stuck on an island...

So people, help me make up my mind

[Executor]

Originally posted by Lorizael
No one starts out with any traits. The only reason you would pick Babylonians is because you like the name. Even the AI would have to develop over time.

Why not have each civilization start with about 50 points in two traits. Then depending on your choices in the game, those traits can change to reflect the path you have chosen.

[Crouchback]

Civilization has never been about the group we choose to lead to triumph and glory, but about who we are as players. There was a funny and true column, Know Your Enemy by Lazarus and the Gimp, which spelt it out perfectly.

Civ 2 allowed us to make the choices as players that led to different sorts of societies and victories. Civ 3 demands that we evaluate ourselves from the outset. As we boot the game up we're going to be forced to put ourselves on the couch and honestly ask: "What kind of game do I want to play today?"

IMO you're right Lorizael, it's going to be totally unrealistic and very confining. But it may also be great fun.

Think about it. Gone is the trouble and effort of moulding a civilization to reflect your natural game style, just choose the Germans and get those Panzers rolling or buy into the Greeks and heap the bounty up in the Parthenon. As for changing tact mid-game to cope with unforeseen events or new opportunities: Don't. Play to your strength as a player and a nation.

We'll have to wait for the game, but my guess is that the differences between civilizations is going to make playing Civ 3 much more engrossing and enjoyable than any of its predecessors.

David

[Lorizael]

Originally posted by Executor


Why not have each civilization start with about 50 points in two traits. Then depending on your choices in the game, those traits can change to reflect the path you have chosen.

Actually, that sounds pretty good. That way you still have a chance to change, but everyone starts out a little different, cool

Shanky Burns, the enemy AI wouldn't be generic, because they would also evolve over time as you did, maybe I didn't make that clear.

And there have been several spam posts since I got back, but I've resisted and haven't replied to any of them! I being able to talk on Apolyton... not gonna let that happen again...