Civilizations

[Earthling7]

Sounds like a reasonable idea. I don't see why you'd want to be a nomadic nation, but if they implement it, it might add a new dimention to the gameplay...

------------------
Greetings,
Earthling7
ICQ: 929768

[Diodorus Sicilus]

Yuvo, to some extent you're 're-inventing the wheel' with the nomadic civilizations: I posted on that months ago in the "Suggestions for Firaxis" forum...gist of that was a nomadic civ (starting) produced Tribal Units which had the characteristics of 'mobile cities'. Biggest difference was that they could only reach a small size (perhaps pop of 3-4 max) before splitting off into new territory as 2+ new Tribes. Nomadic units would all be higher morale (more warlike lifestyle) than 'settled' civs that didn't spend big bucks on training. Nomads would pretty much have to settle down and found or conquer regular cities of their own by gunpowder, but they could be a scourge in the ancient period of the game and being mobile might have (built in) some advantages in setting up Trade Routes and trade income, also in trading tech with other civs (middlemen, so to speak).
As for the discussion concerning which and how many civs to include, as long as I can insert my choice of civs, I don't care: I play Civ II all the time with either a set of ancient civs (Celts, Hittites, Etruscans, Thracians, Illyrians, etc) or early modern European civs (Bavaria, Saxony, Burgundy, Poland, Scotland, Sweden, etc).
One thing I will add to the discussion, that I think is the origin of many problems: most modern civs are actually combinations of earlier civs. Furinstance, Britain/England is a combination of Germanic, French, Celtic, and Roman civs, while France is a combination of earlier Roman, Celtic, and German. Instead of having a myriad choices of anachronistic civs to start with, how about relatively few choices (as in CivII now) but the possibility of new civs forming during the game from combinations of the old with barbarians or 'minor civs'. Minor Civs, by the way, I think should be variations on the barbarians: just name them red fellers, let them build cities (or Tribal Units-see above) with the possibility of settling down and becoming "civilized" - possibly by conquering one of your cities and starting a Hybrid Civ with a shield in red and (your civ color). Ultimately, unit shields could have up to three stripes of colors. Including barbarians, even with only 8 starting civs that would give each game a potential 24 civilizations by the time it ended. If you want even more variation, have the civs change their titles based on a change in character (leadership? givernment?).
Thus, Tyrannic/Monarchic Vikings become Republic/Democratic Iceland, Warlord Celts get invaded by Rome and form a 2-striped Gaul which is invaded by Vikings and forms a 3-stripe Duchy of Normandy, which invades England and forms a new England with 3-stripes (dropping the oldest color)
The result if properly handled could be a much more dynamic game, more variety of civs and civ types within each game, and room for all the variations or modern nationalism represented by trying to include every current and ancestrial nation in the game package...

[Sir Shiva]

I wonder what danielc's thinking? I don't think he expected 47 replies to his post..

DanielC, have you seen what you have done?

------------------
-Shiva
Email: shiva@mailops.com
Web: http://www.crosswinds.net/india/~shiva
ICQ: 17719980

[Yuvo]

Diodorus Silicus,
Thanks for informing me on the "re-invention of the wheel". I get the feeling many older suggestions are being re-thought-up by newer members. I guess it just shows great minds think alike.

In contrast to the mobile-cities thing, I was thinking more along the lines of units, that produce new ones. They would be classified as the same as normal units, except maybe there would be some kind of indicator near the nomad's statistics as to how close the unit is to producing a new one.

Also, I thought the different types of nomad gave some disdinction to the different climates people live in.
Maybe we could put in a "civilized" nomad that could trade etc. like you are suggesting.

With your suggestions on starting civs, I think peopple might get annoyed because they can't start with modern civs like the Americans or Australians.
But I certainly am in favour of civs joining together and breaking apart, rather than having the same 7 all through you game.

[Diodorus Sicilus]

People tend to forget that the ancient 'nomadic' barbarians actually had a rather efficient pastoral economy, traded over huge distances, and posed major threats to their more settled neighbors. My intention with a Nomadic Civ that generated Tribal 'cities' and powerful units was to represent these better than the current CtP or CivII random pack of barbarians does.
The option to start with any anachronistic/modern civ can always be included in the game, along with an Option similar to the Don't Restart Eliminated that is in CivII now: Only Original Civilizations, indicating that there will be no amalgamating or'hybrid' civs during the game. However, another option (which I'd make the Default) would be to acquire Victory Points based on how long your civ goes without getting Hybridized. It certainly says something about your play to manage something like China and remain a separate recognizable racial and cultural type for 6000+ years, or even Greece or Korea which, although conquered at times, have maintained a separate identifiable culture throughout the same period.
Slightly off the topic, but I get tired of games in which the last10-30% of the game consists of increasing domination of the entire world by one nation, even when I'm playng that nation! realistically, I think it's how you play the 6000 historical years rather than how many huge cities you can develop in the last 50 turns that should count.
More variety in Victory possibilities also makes for a more varied and interesting game for all concerned: I'd love to see a multi-player game in which at the end one player is hailed as "Yuvo the Conqueror" with the greatest (traditional victory) military and economic strength in cities, units, etc, while another player is labeled "Cradle of Civilization" for having the earliest great civ and yet another gets the nod as "Nation of Shopkeepers" for having more and bigger trade routes than anyone else, etc., etc.

[WarVoid]

The Carthaginians should be replaced by the Phoenicians. After all the Phoenicians invented writing, glass and were known for Tyrian dye. The Phoenicians also founded cities all over europe; including Cornwall(England), Carthage (Tunisia), Cadiz & Granada (Spain), Sidra (Libya), Marseille (France), Monaco, Palermo (Italy), Cyprus and many other cities. This civilization should definately be included.

[Yuvo]

Diodorus:
I too would like to see various winners, I especially like the "Cradle of Civilization" thing.
Instead of the score at particular times, I think a civ's historical importance should be added into the score aswell. Any ideas on how historical scores could be calculated?

WarVoid:
I agree, the Phoenecians should be in. But I'd like to see the Carthaginians aswell, they were still historically important.

[WarVoid]

In answer to Yuvo's question. Civ3 could use and epoch type score. Say for instance if you play as a very old civilization such as the Hittites you get a large bonus since they were founded so long ago. If you play as a newer civ like the Americans which is only 224 years old the bonus will be less.

Another idea would be endurance. Like the Romans lasted a very long time so the bonus score would be big. Where as the Hittite empire was old but didn't last long and fell to Greece, so their bonus would be small.

The question I have is how would this affect the customized civs.

[Sirotnikov]

quote: Originally posted by WarVoid on 04-15-2000 08:23 PM The Carthaginians should be replaced by the Phoenicians. After all the Phoenicians invented writing, glass and were known for Tyrian dye. The Phoenicians also founded cities all over europe; including Cornwall(England), Carthage (Tunisia), Cadiz & Granada (Spain), Sidra (Libya), Marseille (France), Monaco, Palermo (Italy), Cyprus and many other cities. This civilization should definately be included.

Actually, If I remember my history lessons correctly (and I should 'cause I love history) the Phoenicians are basically ancient Carthagians. And the Pheelistins (i have no idea how to spell that) are also descendants of Phoenicians.

[WarVoid]

I almost forgot. Siberians. Theres almost no civs that start in this area of the map. After the breakup of Batu Khan's Golden Horde the khanates (states) of Sibir (Siberia), Astrakhan, Crimea and Kazan came into existence. Sibir lasted until 1583 when Russian cossacks conquered the capitol city also named Sibir.

For you history buffs. Try finding that city on any map. I've only been able to find it on one.

The city is located just north-east of Tobolsk on the Irtysh river east of the Urals. An easy way to find it is locate Omsk first then look a little further north.

[Sir Shiva]

The phoenicians should definitely be in..
But they don't have to replace anyone.. As was said before, Firaxis should include as many civs as possible and make others available for download later on..

------------------
-Shiva
Email: shiva@mailops.com
Web: http://www.crosswinds.net/india/~shiva
ICQ: 17719980

[Sir Shiva]

Maybe each civ could have its own directory,
eg:- c:\Civ3\Civs\Russians

This way, different civs can have different techs and units.
For example, Indians could have the elephant while English have the crusaders. The units could be equivalent..
It is strange to see the Arabs use Crusaders against French elephants after all..
In this way, cities, units, tech names, improvement names and pictures etc. could be civ-specific..

Of course, they must be customisable too...

------------------
-Shiva
Email: shiva@mailops.com
Web: http://www.crosswinds.net/india/~shiva
ICQ: 17719980

[Yuvo]

WarVoid:
But the in a civ game, Americans wouldn't always start at the same time, in fact they could start at any time, couldn't they?
You might have misunderstood my question, I was talking about the civ's historical imortance in the game you're playing. Sorry for not making myself clearer.

But I think that you could get points for the amount of years your civ lasts. If the "Rise and fall of empires" is included, and if not all civs start at the same time, this could be very important to your final score.
[This message has been edited by Yuvo (edited April 17, 2000).]

[WarVoid]

Yuvo:
So your saying base part of the score on the civs historical importance. I get you now.
However, history is re-written by the players in the game AI or human.
So the historical score could be based on what part that particular civ played in a single games history.
Such as if the Americans build so many wonders. Or contact other civs first. Or make certain discoveries first. Rating each player on their rankings in discovery, diplomacy, improvements, etc.. 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th and 7th. Barbarians don't get rated.
Is this what you meant?

[tniem]

WarVoice-

Yes that is what he meant. But if you stay on the forums long enough you will quickly learn that most people feel that we should go beyond 7 civs plus barbarians. Instead many feel larger games plus minor civs and rise and fall of empires. Take a look around if you don't understand and welcome to the forums.