 |
|
Brent
|
|
America's mythological ruler would be Uncle Sam.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Brent
|
|
For civs which changed their capital in real history, give to the first new city in a more favorable spot than the first the name of the best known capital, and suggest that the capital be moved there.
Be able to keep your empire more cohesive by sending settlers from one region to join cities elsewhere.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
bob rulz
|
|
Different use for colonies (more variation).
For example, if there's a resource on an island that you don't have, and is too small to be of any worth to build a city on (especially when it would just struggle anyway), you could build the colony. In this colony this is what you can and can't do...
-You can only build it on top of a resource. However, you can build one on the coast as long as it's on an island, across a sea, ocean, etc, and connected to a resource (with a colony on it).
-You can only build one colony per resource tile, and you must declare which resource it is connected to (any of them not already claimed by another colony).
-These first two restrictions are to avoid any exploits that could arise otherwise.
-You can build a harbor (and only if it's on the coast of course).
-You can only station (and build) smaller boats there (galleys, privateers, caravels, galleons, transports, destroyers).
-You can station up to two air units there, but only if you have an airstrip (same functions as an airport).
-You can station as many ground units as you want until you hit tanks (you can only station 5 or so).
-You can build a barracks, so that you don't have to transport back obsolete units to upgrade them.
-A colony only has influence on the square that it is located on.
-Colonies act as population 1, and may fall into civil disorder (which may eventually force the disbading of the colony). There is always a specialist, however, and it may be any of the normal kind (so as to make it specialized in some sort of way).
-A colony will disband if captured or if it falls within your boundaries (or anyone elses boundaries).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lord Nuclear
|
|
The Americas (7)
Iroquois
Americans
*Sioux/Lakota
Mayas
Aztecs
Incas
*Inuit
West Europe: (9)
English
France
Spain
Portugal
Germany
*Austria
Netherlands/Dutch
Vikings
*Sweden
Celts
Eastern Europe: (2)
Russia
*Poland
Mediterranean: (5)
Rome
Greece
Carthage
Egypt
Byzantine
Africa: (6)
*Shonghai
*Ashanti
*Mali
*Ethiopia
Zulu
*Bantu or Kenya or Tanzania
Middle East: (7)
Arabs
Turkey/Ottoman Empire
Persia
*Israel/Hebrew
Babylon
Sumeria
Hittite
South/Southeast Asia (4)
India
*Khemer
*Indonesia/ Majaphit empire
*Thailand
Far East Asia: (6)
China
Japan
Korea
Mongolia
*Tibet
*Dai Viet
For Oceania: (2)
*Polynesians
*Maori
Civilizations with stars beside their name are new additions. In total, there are 49 civilizations. Comments on this list are appreciated.
Last edited by Lord Nuclear on 04-07-2004 at 22:53
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Brent
|
|
The Americas
If I were to leave out one you have listed, it would be the Inuit. As for Native North Americans, maybe have the Sioux and Algonkins, each partially representing all the peoples that are linguistically related to them. Or have the Eastern Woodlands Civ and the Great Plains Civ. Just some thoughts. I can't think of any that I would strongly want to add to your American list, but Olmec, Adena/ Hopewell/ Mississippian, Moche, Nazca, Zapotec, Toltec, and Anasazi are some thoughts.
West Europe I think it would be reasonable either to stick with unified Scandinavians, or have separate Norway/ Denmark/ Sweden, but the way you had it doesn't look right to me. Some thoughts I'm not particularly attached to include Iceland, Raetia, Burgundy, and Switzerland. But what you have looks pretty good. Maybe remove the Celts.
Eastern Europe
An idea I'm not very attached to would be Prussia. A little more emphatically, I would suggest Lithuania, Finland, and Armenia.
Mediterranean
Maybe Phoenicians instead of Carthage. Possible additions: Crete and Thrace.
Africa
Definitely keep Ethiopia. Any of the others could go, or you could keep them and add Hausa, Khoisan, Wolof, Dahomey.
Middle East
Ottomans could possibly go, Elam could be added.
South/ Southeast Asia
Khmer is good, maybe Malay instead of Indonesia, Thailand could go, I would add Kashmir and maybe Turkestan.
Far East Asia
If one had to go, it would be Dai Viet.
Oceania
I'd keep the Maori and leave it at that.
I now fully recognize that my old list is truly an overkill list. My current master list of addons to C2/ C3/ PTW/ Conquests: Ethiopia, Hausa, Songhay, Khoisan, Wolof, Mali, Asante, Dahomey, Khmer, Kashmir, Tibet, Malay, Lithuania, Finland, Armenia. If there's one new civ only, I want the Ethiopians.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
bob rulz
|
|
Please forgive my stupidity in using the quote button. My replies are in the box. 
quote:
Originally posted by Brent
The Americas
If I were to leave out one you have listed, it would be the Inuit. As for Native North Americans, maybe have the Sioux and Algonkins, each partially representing all the peoples that are linguistically related to them. Or have the Eastern Woodlands Civ and the Great Plains Civ. Just some thoughts. I can't think of any that I would strongly want to add to your American list, but Olmec, Adena/ Hopewell/ Mississippian, Moche, Nazca, Zapotec, Toltec, and Anasazi are some thoughts.
I could agree here.
West Europe I think it would be reasonable either to stick with unified Scandinavians, or have separate Norway/ Denmark/ Sweden, but the way you had it doesn't look right to me. Some thoughts I'm not particularly attached to include Iceland, Raetia, Burgundy, and Switzerland. But what you have looks pretty good. Maybe remove the Celts.
Why remove the Celts? They were the most civilized civilization outside of the Romans and Greeks in Europe in its day in age. Iceland was simply a colony of the Vikings, then the Danes. It never held any influence, and what's Raetia? I agree that they should keep it unified or completely seperate as well.
Eastern Europe
An idea I'm not very attached to would be Prussia. A little more emphatically, I would suggest Lithuania, Finland, and Armenia.
Well, Prussia is practically Germany. Lithuania and Poland were practically the same civilization (and are still closely related). Finland is questionable, as they never really held any influence. Armenia should be the Middle East.
Mediterranean
Maybe Phoenicians instead of Carthage. Possible additions: Crete and Thrace.
Carthage was extremely powerful before the Romans wiped them out, and Carthage almost beat Rome itself. Crete would be the Minoans, and yes, they should be in there. Yes, the Phoenicians should be in there, they were the most powerful peaceful civilization of it's time, and managed to create an empire based entirely on trade.
Africa
Definitely keep Ethiopia. Any of the others could go, or you could keep them and add Hausa, Khoisan, Wolof, Dahomey.
Khoisan and Wolof never really held much influence. Personally I think he should get rid of the Bantu, they never really formed anything totally civilized.
Middle East
Ottomans could possibly go, Elam could be added.
What are you smoking?  The Ottomans held MUCH more influence than Elam. Their rule lasted until World War I amd ecompassed almost the entire Arab world at one point! However, Elam WAS civilized, and they probably should be in here. Just DON'T take out the Ottomans.
South/ Southeast Asia
Khmer is good, maybe Malay instead of Indonesia, Thailand could go, I would add Kashmir and maybe Turkestan.
Malay and Indonesia were indistinguishable until the advent of the Dutch and British. Kashmir?!! They were never a civilization! They're just an important region now. Please forgive my stupidity if I'm wrong. Turkestan, however, is a very good idea. Also, Thailand was working with iron 1000 years before the Hittites (the first in the west), and they held significant influence throughout Southeast Asia. They were never even colonized! They've beenm an independent country since about 1000 AD. But it should be called Siam instead of Thailand, as that is their proper historical name.
Far East Asia
If one had to go, it would be Dai Viet.
The Dai Viet would more properly be Annam, and they held significant influence until colonization by the French, and they still exist in Vietnam (and partially Cambodia and Laos as well). Tibet should go, as they never really held much influence. Nepal would be a better choice to replace them, as they were a large influence before hte British arrivied, plus they resisted British rule and kept the British rule partially in check (sort of).
Oceania
I'd keep the Maori and leave it at that.
Agreed. The Polynesians are questionable.
I now fully recognize that my old list is truly an overkill list. My current master list of addons to C2/ C3/ PTW/ Conquests: Ethiopia, Hausa, Songhay, Khoisan, Wolof, Mali, Asante, Dahomey, Khmer, Kashmir, Tibet, Malay, Lithuania, Finland, Armenia. If there's one new civ only, I want the Ethiopians. |
Take off Khoisan, Wolof, Kashmir, Tibet, make Lithuania either Poland-Lithuania or Poland, and Finland is questionable. Add the Phoenicians (like you said earlier).
Last edited by bob rulz on 24-06-2004 at 12:04
|
|
| |
|
|
|
bob rulz
|
|
As for my list...
Asterik* means that it is questionable in my book. If some need to go, these would go first.
TOTAL CIVS-58
IDEAL CIVS (no asterik)-44
...if I counted correctly
AMERICAN (8)
America
Iriquois
Aztecs
Maya
Toltec*
Olmec
Nazca*
Inca
EUROPEAN (13)
Netherlands
Scandinavia
Germany
France
Burgundy*
Portugal
Spain
Britain
Celts
Switzerland
Russia
Poland*
Goths*
MEDITERRANEAN (6)
Egypt
Rome
Greece
Minoa
Phoenicia
Carthage
AFRICAN (7)
Songhai Empire
Ethiopia
Mali
Dahomey*
Benin*
Zulu
Zimbabwe* (yes they are seperate from the Zulu)
MIDDLE EASTERN (12)
Israel/Hebrews
Hittites
Byzantines
Ottomans
Elam*
Persians
Arabs
Sumeria
Babylonia
Assyria*
Armenia*
Turkestan
SOUTH ASIAN/OCEANIAN (7)
India
Nepal*
Annam
Khmer Empire
Siam
Srivijaya Empire*
Maori
EAST ASIAN (5)
China
Korea
Japan
Mongols
Huns*
Last edited by bob rulz on 24-06-2004 at 11:52
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Max Sinister
|
|
@Nuclear Master, bob, brent:
Minoans are a good idea. OK, they were a very small civ, but if we have Sumerians and Hittites, they aren't too wrong either.
Fins: And Linus Torvalds will become one of their scientific leaders :-)
Prussia: Were you talking about the German kingdom Prussia (Frederick the Great, Bismarck) or the people who lived there before the Germans came? They were Slavic (I think), pagan and later were assimilated, but the name of the land stuck.
I'd add the following civs:
North America:
Inuit
Apaches or Navajos
(maybe Californians and Texans? ;-)
South America (always so empty):
Brazilians
Argentinians
Europe:
Ukrainians?
Africa:
Massai
Some people living in the Congo basin - any suggestions?
AFAIK Bantu are a super category for many people in Southern and Eastern Africa, live Slavs
Asia:
Pakistani
Bengals
Tibet would be OK for me
maybe Tamils
Do we already have Harappans?
Australia:
Australians (what else?)
Aborigines
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Brent
|
|
Bob, thanks for your comments.
Max: I've suggested before we could use all the native groups from Colonization for the Americas. Tamils and Harappans sound good.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Wernazuma III
|
 |
Decolonize!
Aug 2000
time: 06:36
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by bob rulz
Why remove the Celts? They were the most civilized civilization outside of the Romans and Greeks in Europe in its day in age. Iceland was simply a colony of the Vikings, then the Danes. It never held any influence, and what's Raetia? I agree that they should keep it unified or completely seperate as well. |
Raetia was the Roman province comprising mainly what is today Switzerland, Western Austria and large parts of Bavaria. It was of essentially Celtic population, so I can't understand the point either.
Iceland, right!
But saying the Celts were the most civilized in Europe beside Romans and Greeks is kind of err, unless you see as Roman and Greek everything controled by them, which is essentially everything. Otherwise, you'd have to name at least the Etruscans, Thracians, Dalmatians, Iberians as "more" civilized at a la par.
quote:
Lithuania and Poland were practically the same civilization (and are still closely related). |
Which doesn't prevent Lithuanians from being hostile towards Poles. AFAIK, Lithuanians are the only ones complaining about Polish imperialism. 
quote:
Finland is questionable, as they never really held any influence. Armenia should be the Middle East. |
True and true
quote:
Carthage was extremely powerful before the Romans wiped them out, and Carthage almost beat Rome itself. Crete would be the Minoans, and yes, they should be in there. Yes, the Phoenicians should be in there, they were the most powerful peaceful civilization of it's time, and managed to create an empire based entirely on trade. |
But don't forget that Carthaginians were Phoenicians.
quote:
What are you smoking? The Ottomans held MUCH more influence than Elam. Their rule lasted until World War I amd ecompassed almost the entire Arab world at one point! However, Elam WAS civilized, and they probably should be in here. Just DON'T take out the Ottomans. |
Absolutely agree on Ottomans, but disagree on Elam. If Elam is included, one could as well have Urarteans, Mitanni, Kassites, Hurrites etc., populating Civ with a dozen of Mesopotamian or semi-mesopotamian civs
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Enigma_Nova
|
|
There are plenty of historical civs, but some of them are closely aligned.
It would be pointless to have clone civs - even if they have different graphics.
Some of those civs mentioned would be pretty close to one-another.
It's not worth making a new facade for the same underlying principle.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Enigma_Nova
|
|
Can we stop the flaming and get back to producing rediculous ideas?
...
Thank you.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Brent
|
|
Could we have a few detailed scenarios and treat them like the Fantasy and SciFi worlds in Test of Time, and have up to 30 civs in each? I whittled down a list for a Native North America one: Powhatan, Tuscarora, Creek, Catawba, Cherokee, Apache, Navajo, Ute, Inuit, Tlingit, Chinook, Yahi, Maidu, Miwok, Sioux, Ojibway, Cree, Blackfeet, Crow, Cheyenne, Comanche, Algonkin, Zapotec. Have each of these scenarios come with a premade map of their part of the world, allow playing of the civs on a random map, and make it a simple matter to use a civ from any of them in the main game. Maybe have an American one that includes colonial powers such as Dutch, French, British, Scandinavians, Spain, Portuguese, Russians, Chinese, Phoenicians, Germans, and maybe treat the old countries like in Colonization, you would disappear and reappear at the edge of the map. I could list civs for scenarios of this type for the Middle East, Europe, Asia, Africa (with colonial powers).
Do we want to use this thread for traits/ rulers/ subordinate characters for each civ or have a different thread for that? Would we want to limit this to civs in previous games?
Rulers:
America: Uncle Sam, Yankee Doodle, Washington, Lincoln, Kennedy
England: Arthur, Coel, Brutus, Henry I, Mary, Victoria
France: Charlemagne, Hugh Capet, Napoleon, Joan of Arc
Israel: Moses, Joshua, David, Solomon, Zedekiah
Rome: Romulus, Caesar
|
|
| |
|
|
|
CarnalCanaan
|
 |
The Biggest Little City in the World
May 2004
time: 05:36
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by lajzar
On the subject of Forbidden Palace, anyone else think it should be renamed? |
I would support that. But what to call it? Frankly, there really isn't any historical equivalent to what Civ3 calls "The Forbidden Palace".
Large, pre-mechanized transport empires were usually held together not by decentralization, but by a strong figurehead and loyal noblese. Of course, the only one that really did last for a good long while was Rome -- the exception, by far.
Instead, the residual presense of other cultures, kept placid by toleration/military presense, would hold a large ancient empire together. (Even the most militarily born empires, such as those of the Mongols or the Aztecs, were cemented with the consent of the conquered.)
A replacement for the Forbidden Palace might be a Small Wonder-esque concept like an Imperial Raj or Viceroy. Coming into effect in the late Medieval or Industrial section of the tech tree, this would more accurately simulate the historical trend by empires to decentralize their rule over distant colonies. (Even as late as the 18th Century, the British were still trying to rule their North American colonies the old way by submitting them to the crown and trying to keep them happy. The Spanish had already learned that this was inefficient and doomed to failure, thus creating viceroys -- literally 'sub-sovereigns' who ruled their given colonies as if they were kings.)
This would work well with the concept of minor civs, I believe, as your ancient or industrialized empire expands, either placating or granting localized governance to the newly conquered lands, respectively.
But first, the other cultures have to be far more reisistant to assimilation than they are in Civ3.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Drachasor
|
|
Well, I don't think we are going to see a return to the Forbidden Palace. There is either going to be an overhaul of the corruption and waste system, or they are going to get rid of them both. Seems like the FP simply isn't going to be relevent anymore.
I do like the idea of minor civs. These would be 1 city civilizations randomly scattered about the map, having 1 or 2 military units. I think you should be able to convince them you join you via diplomacy, though conquest could always happen too.
As for citizens, they should be able to have at least a dual heritage. Maybe you conquered the city 20 years ago, but if you do things right they should consider themselves citizens of your empire. That doesn't mean they don't like their old empire, and it doesn't mean they wouldn't acclimate faster to it than to a third party. Hmm, I suppose things could go into more depth than that, but it would take up a fair amount of space managing all the nationality levels for all the citizens.
I hope cIV allows there to be 32-64 civilizations though, main ones, I mean. If you want that many, of course.
-Drachasor
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Brent
|
|
Rulers:
Egypt: Mizraim, Seti, Rameses, Tutankhamen, Cleopatra, Joseph
Polynesia: Kamehameha, Hawaii- Loa, Queen Lil
Israel: Jacob, Judah, Saul
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Brent
|
|
Should I give up on the idea of each civ having multiple rulers to choose from? Would people who were rulers in history make sense as subordinate characters?
If we use the name Hebrews, this civ could be ruled by Eber or Abraham.
Arabs: Ishmael, Hagar
Probably what I should give up on is Mizraim and Joseph for Egypt.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Max Sinister
|
|
Isn't Mizraim the Hebrew name for Old Egypt?
I still like the idea of having multiple rulers per Civ. So we could have Abraham, Moses, David, Salomon, Ben Gurion and Golda Meir for Israel.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:36.
Apolyton Time is 00:36. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
14-06-2004 19:34
|