CIVILIZATIONS (ver1.1): hosted by LordStone1

[paraclet]

A good way to be close top history would be to be able to play from the beginning only civilisations we know survived throughout centuries until now.Others should be played by the computer only and should Not make any scientific progress by themselves.
Like the american Indians or the Incas who should stay at the archery level.That's what'shappened when europeans conquered america with guns...the other had only bows...Like that when you start to colonise the world you can find large civilisations with only bowmen to protect themselves, trade with them, give them gunpowder or any knowledge if you wish to attack other civs like the english did against the french etc...or conquered them and destroy their civilisation like america did...

[CormacMacArt]

An interesting "What if...?" to think about when talking about pigeon-holing civilizations is, What if the Aztecs had given the Spanish a disease that they had no immunity to, instead of the reverse? When the europeans had returned, the second inning might have been different.

[Kris Huysmans]

7 civs isn't enoug. The play must chose how many civs he wants. I found that you must have the choose to play with random personalities but also the choose to play with historic personalities.

[Harel]

Well, personly i belive the game will further enhance the feeling of the game is we will have specific-feeling for cultures.
Like age of empries, every group of nation had there own buildings and unit look.
Same thing with the settler series.
The civ in Firaxis should be unique, special, with there own original background.
Diodorus said the name are "eye-candy". The don't have to be. We can select the civ's which were TRUELY original, where everything started. They will have a distincy FEEL, maybe the city would look differently, maybe different units and techs ( even due i am not in-favor of that option ).
My point is, the civ's should be competly different then everyone else.
And cormac, the americans are unique, their blend is there culture, but it IS a blend. A mix of things that were there before. I am talking about the ancient ones, those who started them all.
And Kerris, the bible isn't the only form of history knowladge. The hebrew were a tribe long before the slavery to the egyptains, and even pre-date the egyptain culture.
Therefor, I once again suggest the following cultures and there starting point:

Mongul ( Mongulia )
Persian ( Iran )
Maia ( Easter Island on near shore )
Gauls ( North France )
Minoun ( Crete )
Egyptain ( Noth egypt )
Hebrew ( South Egypt or Israel )
Zulu ( Zair )
Indains ( Area of Tibet )
German ( Germeny )
Pheonicans ( Lebanon )
Babylonian ( Iraq )

I also stated my idea about the EVOLVING civ's. Along the game, by rebellion, war or just plain goverment transformation, the culture will change into a newer version.
Indias may transform into Chinaes, Koreans, Japanize.
Persians can become Ashurians.
Babylonians can cover arabs.
Pheonicans can become ottomans, turks, byzantin.
Minoun can become greek and roman.
Gauls will become celt, british, france, spanish and portoguse.
German will become norwish, viking, soviets...
Mainen into sioux, inca, aztec...

You get the idea.

[CormacMacArt]

Harel, so what do you think about the idea of having (as a comprimise) 9 "original", 9 ancient, and 9 modern civs in the list of civs?

[NotLikeTea]

Noooooo!

7, 7, and 7. We have a tradition to maintain here!

[Harel]

I still don't think we should have the option to select a "modern" civ to start playing the game, Cormac. You should choose an old civ which will transform herself along time.
Gauls into British, British into american.
You can't have the american culture, one that is founded by the merger of cultures ( requiring time, technology of travel, etc. ) into 4,000 bc beacause no such culture of blending could arrise then. Too primitive sources of transportion, and little understanding and culture devlopment to understand, respect and live with different life espects and alien cultures.

[LordStone1]

Okay. I'll be closing this thread soon - whatever is in this thread at the end of Thursday will be put into the summary which will be sent to Firaxis. So get your ideas in here or you'll have to wait until next time...

[Eggman]

While the concept of "evolving" civilizations is nice and all, but it isn't fun as far as Civ3 goes IMHO. Stick with the wide variety of civilizations.

[CormacMacArt]

I don't think that the idea of evolving civs will work either. At least not as something under the control of the game. That is like programming history into the game.

--Perhaps that quality of TOLERANCE could be looked at as a new parameter for civilizations and have some impact on DIPLOMACY and war?????

I do think that the ideas of colonization and protectorate among other diplomatic ideas should be included to facilitate this evolution.

[LordStone1]

Oh, by the way, cut out the arguments about whether Americans or Aborigines or Azerbaijians are really a civilization or not. They don't belong here. If you say the name of the civilization, it will be included in the summary. Period.

You can sumbit your arguments about whether America truly is a civilization to Firaxis/Microprose and let them decide.

[VaderTwo]

I agree with you, Lordstone, the arguments over the inclusion of the Americans, Aborigines, etc. got somewhat out of control.

Regarding unique abilities of a civ, having just played AOE for a bit, I realize that some civs could end up stronger or weaker than others. For instance, AOE's designers might have not realized that the Shang's abilities left them very weak and the Yamato's abilities left them too strong.

Having experienced that now firsthand, I am a little bit more wary of unique abilities. They should perhaps be limited to unique units (eg english longbow, japanese samurai) and leaders.

I don't recall whether the discussion on leader units was here but I really like the idea of a unit representing the leader/dynasty of a civ and if it is killed or dies of old age a new dynasty would appear. I guess it could be along the lines of a capital that is a unit instead of a building.

[Cartagia the Great]

Ok, first of all I do like the idea of the evolving civilizations. However, they need to be done correctly. For instance the Celts could, eventually, turn into the Irish, Scots or the like. The Franks could turn into the French, and the Visigoths into Spain. Not a perfect representation of history, but a good one, anyway. Every so often it would give you the chance to change your civilization's name, and you could choose the one listed, or make your own.

Notice,however, that this doesn't mean no Americans in 4000 BC. Just that they wold start out as Soemthign else, and then evole. Perhapse their starting name could be the New Englander's the Colonials or something of that fashion.

I am still against the idea of giving each Civilization differant abilities. However, I would be for the idea of allowing thme ot research special technologies tha,t like Wonders of the World, could only be found by ONE Civilization, and then are taken from the list. These techs would allow for differant buildings, and units to use, and COULD be traded, but not gaiend by any more than one civiization through tech research.

The idea of Small civilziations..... you know, at first I was oppessed to this idea, but the more I think of it the more I warm to the idea. This could increase the amount of Civilziatiosn past the 8(I still think 8 or 9 would be good for a game). This would also allow us to ahve a MUCH larger civ base to choose from, each civilization with a chance of becoming a 'minor civilization'. In one game the Bulgarians coudl be a minor civ. I nthe next, due to chance, the Bulgarians could be a world class power, and domiantion them inor civilization of the Romans.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Let it be known that I am TOTALLY against the idea of evolving Civs! You are trying to make an already complex game WAY too complicated. If I want to start as the Americans in 4000 BC (And they will be included, no matter what the protest), I should be able to! As the Americans, not something else.

[CormacMacArt]

Cartagia the Great - correct me if I am wrong, but would it be the same thing if your large civ had a civil war and when that happened you could change the name of the one you picked as yours?