Qué usted está diciendo?

[OrangeSfwr]

I think an addition to Civ 3 would be language. If two warriors meet and don't know how to speak to each other, how can a peace treaty be signed? I think Diplomats should have to either 1) build an Embassy or 2) "Acquire language" from a Rival Civ before you can make peace with them or even understand what they're saying to you. My example would be that if you're the Zulu and you meet the Germans and you wish to speak to them, you will simply get a message from the German diplomat (or ruler) that is simply a bunch of symbols (§Ä«Äúæ§ - for example). This will promote the use of diplomats and make Marco Polo WoW more desirable. Any thoughts on this?

(Once you acquire the language, it will not change and you know it for the rest of the game)

------------------
~~~I am who I am, who I am - but who am I?~~~
"Oh, they have the Internet on computers now!"

[The diplomat]

Sorry to disagree but I think it is more realism than civ3 really needs. I think this idea would make civ3 less fun. That is just my personal and humble opinion, thought.

------------------
No permanent enemies, no permanent friends.
[This message has been edited by The diplomat (edited June 11, 2000).]

[Par4]

Diplomats should have a spend a turn with foreign units or something, you don't learn a language enough to sign treaties and stuff for at least a few months to a couple of years. First contact, turn, treaty signing possible, trade possible.

------------------
I use this email
(stupid cant use hotmail)
gamma_par4@hotmail.com
Don't ask for golf tips
Your game will get worse
HappyLand

[OrangeSfwr]

it wasn't meant to be terribly difficult to discover the other civs language, just a simple diplomatic visit. I didn't mean that each civ would have an actual language that you would have to learn yourself or anything like that. Par - what exactly did you mean by "First contact, turn, treaty signing possible, trade possible."

Basically I just saw it as either a diplomat could walk up to a foreign unit and learn the other civs language, or if you have an embassy with that civ you have knowledge of their language. Any other thoughts on this?

------------------
~~~I am who I am, who I am - but who am I?~~~
"Oh, they have the Internet on computers now!"

[Hasdrubal]

quote: Any other thoughts on this?

Gold and gunpowder are understood the world over.



------------------
Ceterum censeo Romanem esse delendam.

[OrangeSfwr]

Are you suggesting that demanding tribute or declaring war is understood, but asking to declare war against a nation or asking to sign a peace treaty should not be?

------------------
~~~I am who I am, who I am - but who am I?~~~
"Oh, they have the Internet on computers now!"

[The diplomat]

I figured that you didn't mean that the player has to learn a language!
If I understand your idea, are you saying that "language" would be the civ3 equivalent of SMAC's comlink frequency. In order to 'call up' another civ you would need their "language" which you would get with a diplomat unit or from a third civ?



------------------
No permanent enemies, no permanent friends.

[Par4]

I meant when you first meet a foreign civ you shouldn't be able to automatically communicate with them even with a diplomat a unit should have to spend a turn near a city or unit to learn there language, well no sucks for gameplay but something to think about.

------------------
I use this email
(stupid cant use hotmail)
gamma_par4@hotmail.com
Don't ask for golf tips
Your game will get worse
HappyLand

[UltraSonix]

I think the language suggestion would make it much harder to play the diplomatic path. Cause the other civ could just quickly dispatch you ppor diplomat. So maybe realism should be sacrificed for the sake of gameplay here...

------------------
No, in Australia we don't live with kangaroos and koalas in our backyards...

[Spekter]

I'm not really in favour, but if you did it, a caravan should work just as well as a diplomat for learning the language. Most civs learn each others customs through trade, not politics.

EDIT:
This actually brings to mind another point that is totally off topic. Don't you think that when you kill an enemy caravan, your treasury should increase some. Surely your soldiers would loot the caravan, not simply kill it.
[This message has been edited by Spekter (edited June 12, 2000).]

[OrangeSfwr]

I definitely agree that killing a caravan should be similar to killing a barbarian "diplomat" in that you get a message showing that you raided a caravan and recieved gold. I would make it depend on the object the caravan holds. Hides - 2 gold. Uranium - 200 gold. Make sense?

However, I don't think language should be spread by trade (caravan). But I wouldn't mind seeing it in Civ 3. I think the diplomat/embassy idea is a good one and it makes sense. And it's not much of a stretch. I mean I'll let it go if no one likes it. But I think it would make the advent of war in the beginning of the game more likely instead of just "Hey, another tribe. Would you like to sign a peace treaty!"

------------------
~~~I am who I am, who I am - but who am I?~~~
"Oh, they have the Internet on computers now!"

[Steve Clark]

Not necessary. In the past 2000+ years, there have been common languages for diplomats, for the most part. First Greek, then Latin and then English. A nation would only send out a diplomat if that person knew the language of the nation or people it would be dealing with.

[Hasdrubal]

quote: Are you suggesting that demanding tribute or declaring war is understood, but asking to declare war against a nation or asking to sign a peace treaty should not be?

No. Only that, with the right amount of gold or gunpowder shown, a foreign Civ will know exactly what you mean! Even nowadays, showing a handful of dollars has a more profound impact on a tradesperson in Zanzibar than speaking a bit of Swahili. Or that negotions with Saddam Husseyn, no matter how many interpretors you may employ, don't have the effect that some stealth bombers have if you're trying to make your point get through.
Notwithstanding my cynical remark, it could work well in the game, having some sort of advantage derived from learning the language and customs of Civ's you meet. And they should definately include the caravan-looting idea.



------------------
Ceterum censeo Romanem esse delendam.

[OrangeSfwr]

Ok Has, I understand now. I agree with you. But mainly because your examples were modern. I figure that in the game by around 1700 all civs will have met and will have had the ability to build embassies. Without knowing the language you can still choose to(or not to) attack them. It's just they won't know why or that you want money and you can't trade techs with them. Maybe you could also gain language after capturing an enemy civ's city?

------------------
~~~I am who I am, who I am - but who am I?~~~
"Oh, they have the Internet on computers now!"

[Par4]

Off topic

Hey orange how did you put those accent marks over the letters, I need to know for spanish finals, or I'll have to go through the paper marking them in. Please pretty pretty please with cherry on top

------------------
I use this email
(stupid cant use hotmail)
gamma_par4@hotmail.com
Don't ask for golf tips
Your game will get worse
HappyLand
There is no spoon,
But there is a knife