 |
|
Panzeh
|
|
I think that Barbarian 'civs' entering the industrial age should be given status as a regular civilization.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Brent
|
|
Well W's list about convinces me my desire for 200 was misguided, for main civs at least. Maybe civs without uniqueness can be predesigned in the editor and available for editing in, uniqueness added or no. Seeing the separate Scandinavians listed looks wrong. Maybe it would look better to have them listed as Norsemen, Jutes, Danes and Swedes. I don't think the Polynesians should be in unless they are well adapted to islands and a real world map has the pacific islands larger and/ or more plentiful than in real life. Maybe a setup option for random maps should be whether to place civs in their home terrain alongside whether to place them near their kin. I look forward to seeing any corrections W makes.
Does anyone have any political correctness problems with a hierarchy of different levels of civs? Like Germans getting three rulers to choose from and Lithuanians only getting one? I want some different rulers available to represent some different governments.
One reason for including more than one civ with the same Traits may be to see what happens with more than one of them in one game. I want a lot of civs available so it will be more likely to have ones that more people want.
Panzeh's idea has some merit. I disagree with DC about rulers. Maybe every civ can have a special ability for all its units, and maybe that would be all the difference for some or all civs. Being able to add civs in the editor is more important to me than pregenerated civs, but pregenerated civs are important to me too.
Some diplomacy should be available for nonplayer civs. You should be able to choose whether to form an alliance.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wernazuma III
|
 |
Decolonize!
Aug 2000
time: 06:32
|
|
Don't get me wrong, DarkCloud, the list was never meant as a list of 100% worthy fully developped civs. Most of them wouldn't make good large civs. However, it should be possible to find one personality for most of them, and at least two cities/sites for each, thus being ideal for "minor civs".
The more I thin of it, the more "minor civs" seem to be a good idea. Imagine having them start with two settlers, but without the possibility to build new ones. They still could conquer foreign ones however. Thus most of them would die over time, but in some occasions they might develop into good foes.
Those minor civs, as I said, would require little work, as there'd be no UUs and no need for time-robbing leader graphics. Firaxis definitely should focus more on gameplay than on such details. It's very lamentable however, that they were deaf on both ears and did not care about the work done by fans who corrected city lists (no stupid Heidelburg anymore...) etc. It would be no extra work for them to gather information, they'd surely have people (like me) doing that work for free...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Brent
|
|
Themed Expansions
How about each expansion has a theme for the civs it includes, such as minor ancient civs, minor modern civs, ficticious/ mythological civs. Maybe let there be a small amount of content in each expansion that doesn't fit the theme.
Belated Response to Skywalker:
Would I play all of them? If more are available, maybe I will play more of them than otherwise. There are bound to be ones I'm not particularly interested in, the point is to have more options so I can find a few that I like.
Critiquing of Lists
Would anyone object to the critiquing of the posted lists?
Settler Restrictions and the Industrial Age
Perhaps until the industrial age, nonplayer civs cannot build settlers, but if they survive to that point, they can. But by that time, will they have any space to expand?
List Format
Would there be any good reason to separate civs in lists only by commas and not having each on its own line?
Rulers
Perhaps obscure rulers when there are none more famous to choose are acceptable to make the game a little more educational.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Panzeh
|
|
On a huge map, if a minor civ is either ignored for long enough or used as a pawn between major powers, it might just make it to the Industrial age and get technology/settlers at a normal rate and a no-anarchy change to monarchy.
I'd pump up a minor civ with techs if it could hurt my enemy.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Brent
|
|
More thoughts on why so many civs
To me, the designers doing the research and including official city lists is more important than gameplay issues.
Themes Expansions
Would there be any point in specifying middle east for an expansion of minor ancient civs?
America
I would change Hopewell/ Mississippi to Mound Builders. Is Aruac a more correct term for Araucanians?
Europe
I would leave out the Cordobese.
W's changes
I would change Bosnians back to Basques and Ojibwa back to Latin Americans. Who are the Sri Vijaya? If the Maori are specifically in, I don't want generic Polynesians, but maybe Hawaiians.
Number of Civs
With W's revised list, maybe having more than 100 seems not as bad.
Uniqueness
Maybe the civs don't have to all be different in the same way. They should all have at least one ruler but if a civ has 2 rulers it doesn't neccessarily need a UU or otherwise. Some civs could be more alike than others, perhaps much more.
Rulers
Should well known civs have many more available rulers? like 6 or 7?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Plotinus
|
|
Civ splitting
It would be good if it were possible for a far-flung outpost of your empire to "declare independence". If the player agrees to this, they get serious diplomatic kudos; if they disagree, it's a war of independence. This would be a nice variation to the "civil war" idea.
And minor civs I'd like to play - Armenia; Burgundy/Lotharingia; and the Papacy (now that would be fun!).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Fosse
|
|
U.S.A.
Mar 2002
time: 23:32
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by skywalker
If each civ is essentially the same in-game, there'd be no real reason to choose one civ over another except for aesthetics. |
What exactly, in this case, is wrong with aesthetics?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wernazuma III
|
|
Decolonize!
Aug 2000
time: 06:32
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Brent
To me, the designers doing the research and including official city lists is more important than gameplay issues. |
I wouldn't dare to say that. Game designers are game designers and no historians. However, they have fan historians, even graduated historians, who'd do the work for them for free...
quote:
I would change Hopewell/ Mississippi to Mound Builders. Is Aruac a more correct term for Araucanians? |
The problem with Adena/Hopewell/Mississippicultures is that we don't know their real names, how they called themselves. IIRC, Adena is a modern village and Hopewell was a farm on whose ground archaeologist found remains of the culture... "Mound Builders" is a name that gives no flair.
Naming the Anasazi "Ansazi" isn't correct either as it is actually a Navajo word meaning "alien old ones"... We just don't know how they called themselves, but an English name takes away the taste of uniqueness...
Aruac is another form for Arawak, the Indians who inhabited the Caribbean and parts of northern South America.
quote:
I would leave out the Cordobese. |
The Cordobese were a tough choice anyway, but an intriguing one, if thinking closely. The medieval Spanish Caliphate of Cordoba was a very interesting mixed culture with Arab, Berber, Sahara-African, Roman, Jewish, Gothic and Iberian influences. This mix was very innovative and unique (think of architecture). The muslim regions of Iberia were definitely neither "Arab" nor "Spanish".
quote:
I would change Bosnians back to Basques |
I guess this is more a matter of taste than of arguments. I finally shifted to the Bosnians because of the Bogomil faith which was very influential on other European Dualistic movements like the "Albigense" or "Catharans" and because of their later special role as muslim stronghold in Europe. The Basque on the other hand are probably the oldest autochthon ethnicity in Europe...
quote:
and Ojibwa back to Latin Americans. |
I thought about the diversity within Latin America and decided no. There are no "Latin Americans" and a Latin American civilization is pure manufacture. It's like lumping the former English colonies Canada, USA, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and Belize into a single civ! There's a very European LA like Argentina and Chile, the Andean naitons with large native populations of 70% up like Peru, Bolivia and Ecuador, the largely mulato Caribbean and the special case Mexico - worlds between those nations. Frankly, I was not the biggest friend even of having the "American" civilization in, but I guess that is justified by the extreme historical singularity of "America" aka USA.
quote:
Who are the Sri Vijaya? |
Sri Vijaya was a Malayan kingdom on Borneo and modern continental Malaysia. I simply changed them to Malayan...
quote:
If the Maori are specifically in, I don't want generic Polynesians, but maybe Hawaiians. |
I just seperated the Maori from other Polynesians because they completely lost contact to the rest of the Polynesian world and developped a quite different warrior culture. The Hawaiians were always somehow losely part of the larger Polynesian network. But then again, this corner of the world isn't my strongest field...
I just think that Oceania doesn't deserve more than 2 spots (they only deserve a half spot for the football world cup  )
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Brent
|
|
Nonplayable tribes
How many of these should there be? Possibly include Israel and Judah separately in nonplayable form. If there's a huge number, maybe each of the 12 tribes separately. Moab, Ammon, Midian. Go to some effort to cater to upgrading these to playable status in the editor.
Traits
What if the designers include civs with name lists and we provide the traits for the civs we want to use?
Israel
I wouldn't be upset if Israel is left out for PC reasons. It may even be better to leave them out entirely than to give them minor status. I'd like to have them in with full status, but I'm okay with whatever they do on the subject.
Cultural Figures
We could have Cultural Figures that historically belong to an unincluded tribre, either assigned to a closely related civ, or given to civs regardless of any connection.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kirastos
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wernazuma III
The muslim regions of Iberia were definitely neither "Arab" nor "Spanish".
|
But Arabic was the main language of Andalucia, even if the mixture was unique (actually at the time, only Baghdad rivaled the refinement of Cordoba), the background and emotional attachement remained Arab.
In that case, even Morocco wouldn't be considered Arab due to it's uniqueness in the Arab World.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wernazuma III
|
|
Decolonize!
Aug 2000
time: 06:32
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kirastos
But Arabic was the main language of Andalucia, even if the mixture was unique (actually at the time, only Baghdad rivaled the refinement of Cordoba), the background and emotional attachement remained Arab. |
But only very few inhabitants were proper Arabs. The conquerors were largely Berber. Arabic is the language of Quran, thus it was adapted as a dominant language.
quote:
In that case, even Morocco wouldn't be considered Arab due to it's uniqueness in the Arab World. |
That's why I have the Berber civ in the list...
However, sure I admit that my list is debattable and your arguments are as good as mine, it's always a personal view, which factors one considers more important in picking a civ or lumping it together with another one etc. It's just that I've discussed civ-lists for so long now, that my list is quite polished by arguments and counter arguments, though they obviously and hopefully never will cease.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kirastos
|
|
I like pretty much the idea of ethnic influence. But I see two issues:
-- first how are you going to divide the influence of a minority that contributed to two or more civilizations? The Jews for instance have contributed in both Arab and Western cultures. Should we separate the Jews as Ashkenazis and Sephardic? The former mostly contributed to the West in terms of scientific and western issues (Einstein, Marx, Freud) while the latter got involved with the Arabs in medicines, art and philosophy (the most famous is Maimonide, who was also Saladin's personal medic).
--second, what about 'major' ethic influence? Europe has and is influencing (and it's a euphemism) the entire world in our days in every culture. How are you going to implement that without having to automatically capture a city if it falls under your cultural influence like in Civ 3. Could we have in a same civ two cities, with a general cultural background, but each has been influenced by two other different culture, wich in turn have their own cities influenced by the culture with the two cities (are you still following?).
Actually this could happen in border areas, and if the mixture is so tight, well border cities of each neighboring culture would secede from their mother nation and form a new one by themselves (a bit like Cyprus but I'm not sure if it is a good example).
Another thing is, could we have genocides or ethnic cleansing to get rid of the influence of a minor ethnic culture? (that supposes that two influences might not be compatible, or include negative effects in an influence). If we do that with the influence of a major ethnic culture, that should create tensions if not a war between the two civilizations (eg, Greece and Turkey).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kirastos
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wernazuma III
That's why I have the Berber civ in the list...
|
I don't think the Berbers could really be considered a civ because they were mostly nomads or agrarians (they never had one common language nor a writing). The thing is, in Morocco, I think the only areas where you can find "pure" blood would be in the rural areas. Whereas in the cities, even if people might claim a Berber (which is divided in incredebly numerous tribes) or Arab descent, everybody is mixed and the tendancy is to more and more mixture.
Actually I think we could make an exception for Morocco and add it as a civilization of its own (with a mixture of Western, Roman, Phoenician, Arab-Muslim, Andalucian, Berber and Jewish influence) separate to the Arabs (which is true in the real world). Now do we make Morocco and Andalucia the same civilization? That's another debate...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Brent
|
|
Latin America
Maybe the Aztec civ can change its name during the game to Mexico. Maybe the Incas could become the Peruvians. Would this require European immigration?
Cordobese
The Cordobese are growing on me.
noncivs
Groups that can't justifiably be called Civilizations should have a chance to become such, such as the Berbers and many Native American tribes, the Fremont would be nice.
Lists and Consensus
Do we want to continue with separate lists from individuals? Do we want a core list of the civs that the most people agree upon, and maybe other lists that some but fewer agree upon? Does anyone think there should be fewer than 20 civs?
Varying Detail of Civs
Should the civs from Civ1 be more important than all the others? Should they automatically have more leaders to choose from? Several UUs? Should the civs from Colonization be especially detailed in the important aspects of that game? Including the native tribes? Should the Civ2 civs have higher status than civs introduced in Civ3, and the Civ3 civs higher than ones that haven't been in any main Civ game?
Importance versus Uniqueness
Should some small, weak, unpowerful civs be included because they are more interesting? Maybe have an expansion devoted to them?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
okblacke
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Fosse
What exactly, in this case, is wrong with aesthetics? |
Expensiveness relative to the return on gameplay.
[ok]
|
|
| |
|
|
|
polypheus
|
|
United Nations of Earth
Jun 2001
time: 21:32
|
|
In real history, there were many late starting Civs such as Aztecs, Incas, Zulus, Iroquois, etc. These were Civs that were operating in Stone or Bronza Age technology while Europe was already nearing the beginning of the Industrial Age.
Perhaps for better gameplay and increased historic realism, the game could be setup so that a few civs would be late-starters. In this way, they would be smaller and more backwards than the more advanced Civs.
This would of course need to be done so that these backwards Civs were in some remote "New World" continent. and in proximity to other backwards Civs. Then a Civ game would better replicate world history.
Obviously it would be no fun to actually be one of these Civs so any Civ you chose would automatically be a "Major" Civ. Of course perhaps for fun or challenge you could operate a Late Starting Civ if you want (maybe tie that in with Diff Level so in Diety, you are automatically put in the position of our RL Aztecs).
For this to work, you'd need to make some fundamental changes. You'd need a very large map and you'd need to put in place "barriers" (distance to friendly territory, attrtition in hostile terrain, oceans, etc) so that you wouldn't be able to make contact with the "Africa" and "N/S America" backwards Civs. You'd also need to have a large number of Civs, mi nimum of 32 with maybe 6 of these playing the role of backwards Civs.
Then you'd be able to simulate exploration, colonization, exploitation and conquest of the New World, scramble for brand new resources and luxuries, etc.These far flung colonies would also make good use of concepts such as "rremote" culture that might rebel against you thus starting brand new Civs just like in real history.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wernazuma III
|
|
Decolonize!
Aug 2000
time: 06:32
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by polypheus
In real history, there were many late starting Civs such as Aztecs, Incas, Zulus, Iroquois, etc. These were Civs that were operating in Stone or Bronza Age technology while Europe was already nearing the beginning of the Industrial Age.
Perhaps for better gameplay and increased historic realism, the game could be setup so that a few civs would be late-starters. In this way, they would be smaller and more backwards than the more advanced Civs.
This would of course need to be done so that these backwards Civs were in some remote "New World" continent. and in proximity to other backwards Civs. Then a Civ game would better replicate world history.
|
I disagree strongly with this idea. Yes, the Aztecs and Incans were latecomers, but latecomers compared to other civs in their regions, like the Olmecs or Moche etc., similar to how Mongols were latecomers in the Old World.
The "backwardness" of civs came from their isolation and thus lack of exchange. This is already implemented in the Civ concept, as players in remote parts have less contacts.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:32.
Apolyton Time is 00:32. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
08-01-2004 04:34
|