 |
|
LOGO
|
|
Honolulu, Hawaii, United States
Aug 1999 time: 05:13
|
|
I ask the question, how many civs are we gonna have at one time in this game? I like the idea of having some 32 civs that start even in the begining, I don't like the idea of having pre-destined minor civs and major civs.
[This message has been edited by LOGO (edited January 13, 2000).]
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Harlikwin
|
|
I agree that the more civiliaztions the better. I also think there should be some sort of way to turn a "minor" civ into colony for some amount of time and so forth...
-Harli
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Krenske
|
|
Mark
I was wondering about your take on barbarians.
Will each set of barbarians be treated as a seperate new civ. Or will they just be a more generic menace.
As well will it be possible to have new civs appear with a slightly below average set of techs. This would allow for the fact that propogated scientific knowledge will become the basic starting level.
My final question, is regarding civs and the possible merging of them. If a Civ becomes quite dominant in a region and achieves what can only be cosidered mastery over a smaller civ. Can it just eventually absorb the smaller civ diplomatically. As a example I give Rome, dominating the Italian peninsular and slowly absorbing the ally states until they are all effectively Rome. The later civil war was mainly about inequalities of taxation and political concerns.
[This message has been edited by Krenske (edited January 20, 2000).]
|
|
|  |
 |
|
LOGO
|
|
Honolulu, Hawaii, United States
Aug 1999 time: 05:13
|
|
I'm curies about the idea I've heard form differant people about city states. How could they work? Could you play as a city state? Would you enjoy playing as a city state? Anybody?
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Henrique Duarte
|
|
Portugal
Jan 2000 time: 05:13
|
|
Krenske
A comment on Barbarians
The way I see it what we label as barbarians are just tribal cultures neighbouring more complex social societies with higher tech.
The social model and tech model should somehow simulate these realities. Hard techs should easely be transfered while social advances should have a certain social structure as a prerequisite (everybody knows that techs are faster to achieve and develop than social, cultural changes).
Take Rome and the germanic peoples. Rome had a quite advanced society, it went from the military to the entertainment advances.
The german on the other hand had a strong tribal organization, their social structure did evolve as they became more sedentarized (mainly agricultural advances aquired through trade contact from rome) but they were way behind the romans on that aspect. On the other hand when you compare their military organization and power in cent. 1-2 AD with 5th century they cought up really fast (ex. The Gots organized heavy infantry tactics), never becoming top roman legions equal but still much better than before.
Now just add another "small" factor, numbers. A tribal society is much easier to mobilize massively than a urbanized one.
The germans aquired enough tech so that, with their numbers, once the romans showed a hole they would storm through (and so it happened).
Bottom line. if social-tech-military model conections are well established you will have barbarians and advanced civs banging heads all the time.
By the way, Civs never lasted forever..., how are you going to put this into game play?
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Henrique Duarte
|
|
Portugal
Jan 2000 time: 05:13
|
|
Mark
Itīs wonderfull the team thought of the civīs continuity issue.
It was one of the biggest turn downs for me in the commercial civ games
by the way, I aggre with the solutions you described (will they be discussed more thoroughly, is there a model worked out already?)
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Henrique Duarte
|
|
Portugal
Jan 2000 time: 05:13
|
|
Looked at the dynasty model
If I understand well you have all the corners taken care of except one.
1 - one VERY frequent thing to happen should be a civ being runned over, killed, dead, kaput (well - things close to GENOCIDE/forced migration/slavery etc).
Big invasions where reasonably frequent and more stable frontiers only started to get a definitive form when Nationalism became a cultural characteristic. So civs prior to nationalism (and all the tech social diplomatic advances that come before and after) should accept that the end might be just arround the corner.
My idea on this is that when there is no way you can get back on top of your civ, you should be given the chance of playing a AI controlled culture/civ that resembles the most the one you lost (geographic and ethnic affinity should be the big factors). This way you would get the - I was the saxons now I am the normans felling.
I hope I am note repeating older discussions but from what I understood of what I read so far this wasnīt very clear.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Kanzid Stonebreath
|
|
Macclesfield, Cheshire, England.
Apr 1999 time: 05:13
|
|
Personally I think that if you get totally wiped out you should lose unless your people rebel etc. Otherwise how would you lose, and also it would be weird if you start off playing a civ, and you get it killed off, and then end up in control of a fairly powerful Civ.
I would say that you should change Civs at most about twice in the gameeven if this is not realistic it seems morelike it should work for me. Or possibly could this be optional like set it to high number of chages, etc
------------------
What does this box do I wonder?
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Henrique Duarte
|
|
Portugal
Jan 2000 time: 05:13
|
|
Kanzid
Find me a civilization that endured from pre-history to modern days and I will agree with you. My guess is there arent any. With the rebellion option (the you get conquered then you revolt thing) the only civs I remember that would be simulated by the game are China and Japan (maybe there are more, I am not sure)
Remember all the ocidental countries were built on the ashes of other cultures.
Now I wouldnt like to keep losing just for the sake of realism but if there is a way to keep the flow/fun of the game and allow for the rise and fall of empires then Iīll be happy.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Henrique Duarte
|
|
Portugal
Jan 2000 time: 05:13
|
|
Kanzid
Just started to see the implications of your last paragraph...
If we could only change to a smaller culture(less tech and/or social advance and/or population) and be able to do it only twice or something like that, maybe it would work.
We would make our best not to lose (only two lives left :-)), and when we lost we would never get something bigger for our pain.
the game fell and civ fell at the same time :-)))
|
|
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:13. Apolyton Time is 00:13. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|