28-02-2005 01:58									#31
	Got spare money?

quote: Sure, England doesn't always start on an island every time you play, but if that bothers you, it should also bother you that it even has the name England

My point is: What does it mean for England to have traits that it couldn't have developped in this setting? England unique unit is a ship. If it doesn't start on an island, this UU is useless. That's pitiful, particularly if you consider there is one historical uniquely English unit, namely the longbowmen. Find one other country that used longbows? Still, longbowmen are a standard unit. Why couldn't the English choose between a land UU or a naval UU based on game conditions when both could be historically accurate?
As for renaming civs, I often rename my civs in civ2, including all city names. Doing it for all the civs is a bit boring because I have to edit all the names of all cities in the txt files and that's boring since I have to change that each time I want to change the civs I play with. So I end up leaving the default names, but don't care if they are this or that tribe. In Civ3, I don't feel the UUs add anything historical because most of them are very badly chosen. I mentioned the English units, the Gallic swordsman is also something totally weird historically (in fact, swordsmen as a unit are a bit weird in general, but celtic ones..). Why do Germans have a tank instead of, say, Teutonic knights? Why can't Hannibal build elephants?
It would be very possible to allow every civ unique units at every age, with different names and graphics when applicable, if some conditions are unlocked, but prevent any civ from getting 2 different UUs in any single game. You'd have to pick your unit, and this could lock the same unit from other players.

	28-02-2005 04:29									#32
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

BigJMoney, the fact that you didn't knew the first two games brought you to say "No Unique Units is un-civ" or something like that. Since it was a new Civ3 implementation, it was said too fast.

Not knowing certain things can still bring to say things without considering certain aspects. I think you'd like to give Civ 1-2 a test. And since you're at it, don't miss SMAC (Alpha Centauri) or the post-Civ3 Galactic Civilizations! Those last two are played more than Civ3 by some people here, from what I understood ( ). Anyway, everyone cheeeers and smiiile

PS: Atari is not involved anymore (I may be wrong? Who knows). The franchise was sold this year

	28-02-2005 09:57									#33
	Increase the size of your Attachments

Um, Trifna, that's already been pointed out to me, and my reply was, "I stand corrected." I have also already said that I have played SMAC, but thanks for mentioning it. It was a really great game, and the reason I bought Civ3. I personally like both methods those games employed to make the different teams unique. I'm hoping Civ4 will have some kind of hybrid.

@LDiCesare
I see what you are saying, and I suppose its simply a matter of preference. I'm not bothered by the fact that the historical authenticity of the game isn't exact. It's representative in a sense, but the innacuracies are worth it to me for the sense of immersion it gives me. I do see your point. The only thing I don't agree with is that England not starting on an island is "useless". Starting on a continent coast seems just as good to me. And if its Pangea, I usually won't pick England, because their strength certainly is designed to come into play on ocean maps. That's actually another part of the game I like, along with the whole dynamic of the random resources spread.

=$=

	28-02-2005 10:28									#34
	Increase Your PM Length

I think that this leads to two possibilities:
- Get your attributes partly or entirely formed by the environment
- "Pick your general position" option

This could do... Perhaps the first possibility could be something more "temporary", just as having horses around brings to research "cavalry" more easily.


* Trifna notices that BigJMoney is one of the best-quality settlers he has ever seen

	28-02-2005 15:52									#35
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: I'm not bothered by the fact that the historical authenticity of the game isn't exact. It's representative in a sense, but the innacuracies are worth it to me for the sense of immersion it gives me. I do see your point. The only thing I don't agree with is that England not starting on an island is "useless".

I was taking the example of England on an island a bit far. I actually don't care if they don't start on an island.
I think unique units could be dependant of in-game achievements while still retaining civ-specific traits.
You could also select 'themes' when you design your nation. For instance, you could pick Pericles or Alexander as the leader of the Greeks and get different traits (one being more scientific and naval warfare oriented, the other being more expansionist and military for instance).

	28-02-2005 20:26									#36
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by Nikolai Personally I'm in favour of a system where the civs get traits dependant on their accomplishments and behaviour. But perhaps not so that if the Egyptians conquered half their continent during the first 2000 years, get to keep a militaristic trait, if they haven't touched a knife since...

That's something I'd like too.
@Trifna: I didn't want to call you a racist, but I still think it's true: Saying "the Germans are better in science" is logically equal to "everyone else is worse in science". If this was based on their behavior and accomplishments in the past, I maybe could understand it (nurture, education and environment of course influence people, and maybe even genetics are important if people in a certain culture choose their mates for certain abilities) - but in Civ3 the Germans start as a tribe without a past, but still, poof! they're scientific. That's what I dislike.

	28-02-2005 22:45									#37
	Inflate your Upload Space

Then maybe it could come gradually and see its strength in its historic golden age?... I see your point, it is as if it was intrinsect...

I do believe that environmental factors should have their influence (which would influence on this here). As Nikolai says, how do they "get to keep a militaristic trait, if they haven't touched a knife since..."

Last edited by Trifna on 28-02-2005 at 23:02

	01-03-2005 00:52									#38
	Increase the size of your Attachments

It seemed weird to me at first, but now I particularly like the idea of a civ that gains a "trait" based upon how they play the game. It means that if you want to play militarily, you have to go at it for a while first before you start to get your bonuses. And, if at some point in the later game you decided that your military endeavors were fruitless, maybe you could replace that trait with another one by your actions.

Empire Earth II, an RTS game, has a system that is similar to this concept. I think it's called the "crowns" system or something. For example, if you research military techs or maybe defeat a certain number of enemy units first, you gain the military crown and its benefits. I haven't played the game, so I might be misrepresenting it, but that's the basic idea. In Civ4, you probably wouldn't want to make the traits exclusive to only the first civs that achieve them, since more than one civ could easily share the "militaristic" trait. What exactly would be the criteria for gaining a trait? Would it be the two aspects of the game that your civ has focused on most in the last 25 turns, or something? How would the switching of traits work? Would it be optional or mandatory, depending on what you switch focus to?

Anyway, this is probably all rubbish, since the game must be too far into development. I seriously doubt these ideas get anywhere.

=$=

	01-03-2005 02:46									#39
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

I could be wrong, but weren't civ traits and UUs added so that there'd be a real reason for choosing your tribe at the start? In the other Civ games, all civs were the same. There was no reason for picking one tribe over another, other than for the name and picture.

The civ abilities weren't added for the purpose of realism. They were put in to add flavour and variety to the different civs.

	01-03-2005 04:33									#40
	Tired of ads?

Well I guess one could imagine a system where you gain and lose abilities, which can be more or less strong (there's a difference between militaristic and MILiTaa[a-bloody-Spartan]rRissst[was-that-a-Jaguar-warrior?]iiIc!!). Of course, wash off a caracteristic which is very strong and rooted since 1000 years could be a serious thing. It's not like changing leader.

Galaxctic Civilizations has a system where the traits change, even if it is pretty different since about good-neutral-evil.

	01-03-2005 05:00									#41
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by LDiCesare I can turn your argument against you. How realistic is it that England starts not on an island? It is not, therefore England should always start on an island.

NO, not really. What about England marks if off as an "island" civ? What caracteristics of the English civ scream "Island"? I mean, how big is fish in the english diet? Mutton and beef play a bigger role- obviously then being on an island never affected daily english life that much.

Japan would have been a better example for you, but even then, the aspects of Japanese civlization chosen to be highlighted had little to do with island nature of the state.

quote: The map you play on is not (necessarily) the world map, and civilizations are shaped by the place where they live and grow. Civ3 doesn't reflect that, and in this sense is a very bad simulation.

UU's were assigned for a variety of historical purposes- there is no reason why the German UU shjould be the Panzer or the Chinese UU the rider except for historical vagraties. But then again, UU's are easy to change. More important to civ differences is the traits.

quote: You can, in Civ2, replace your tribes name by whatever you want, in addition to renaming every city. You can effectively make your own world. Why couldn't traits be determined by the place you start in instead of by the name of your tribe? The same for unique units.

The place you start will determine much of how you have to play first of all.

But, on the second point, the fact is that most civs do not grow in that much of a different place. Most civs grew in relatively similar climotoligical areas- not too cold, not too hot, any forest in the region gona as fast as the wood could be used, so forth and so on. So how would this affect the game, really? In 90% of you games, you will start on grasslands or plains- how will this honestly affect that you are? And how would traits like religious, scientific, militaristic, or commercial have much to do with your starting location in the first place?

If you want to play England, you chose a water Map, then its UU will matter. If you chose a Pangea Map, you don;t pick England.

In the end, you still make your own world, you just have more choices now of how to add space to the game.

	01-03-2005 15:25									#42
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: I could be wrong, but weren't civ traits and UUs added so that there'd be a real reason for choosing your tribe at the start? In the other Civ games, all civs were the same. There was no reason for picking one tribe over another, other than for the name and picture.

Not entirely true. In Civ2, the French are more likely to produce wine and the Chinese are more likely to produce silk as trade commodities. And the Egyptians are most likely to start with Masonry. Plus the color matters a bit. In Civ1 in particular, you could pick the green in order not to have to face the zulus who behaved very agressively. Or the whites to avoid the Russians for the same reasons. But yes, they wer mostly the same.

quote: What about England marks if off as an "island" civ?

Who else is able to utter sentences like "the continent is isolated"? Wouldn't England have been invaded more often hadn't it been for its island status (the huns didn't raid England for isntance)? Anyway, in the game their UU is a ship, so there is some recognition that they are an island, or naval, power.

quote: But then again, UU's are easy to change.

Yes, but this thread is about changing how UUs work... and you can't choose your UU in-game right now.

quote: But, on the second point, the fact is that most civs do not grow in that much of a different place. Most civs grew in relatively similar climotoligical areas- not too cold, not too hot, any forest in the region gona as fast as the wood could be used, so forth and so on. So how would this affect the game, really? In 90% of you games, you will start on grasslands or plains- how will this honestly affect that you are? And how would traits like religious, scientific, militaristic, or commercial have much to do with your starting location in the first place?

Egypt, Greece, China all started, in real life, in very difference places: River vally amidst a desert, vast plains and prairies near an open sea, mountainous region with lots of islands. So I disagree with your point that civs started in similar places.
Militaristic clearly depends on your environment. If you have no neighbours to fight, how can you be militaristic?
If you have little resources nearby, you'd be more commercial than industrious because you must trade for things you can't produce yourself.
Religious and scientific are more choices for the player to do, but they sound very arbitrary to me anyway. Civs don't start religious, they don't keep the same religion for ages for instacne consider the Romans who started pagan and ended Christian, and who ended up obviously religious since the emperor bowed to the Pope. Why aren't they religious? Such a choice is arbitrary, and should be given to the player in my opinion.

	01-03-2005 18:01									#43
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

LDiCesare: Remember, all orignal major civs, like Egypt, Mesopotamia, China and Indus, started around a major river. It was also important that these rivers, while givining rich output, they required much work and cooperation to function properly and give such a good output. Take Egypt f.ex.: Good farmland around the river, but only in parts of the year was farming optimal, the Egyptians needed to make irrigration from the Nile the rest of the year to keep the farming running. That is part of the reason civilization came into play in that area; Good starting point, but cooperation was needed to do it effective, and therefore free up time to develop cultural stuff.

	01-03-2005 21:29									#44
	Put an end to popups!

Nikolai, Incas and Aztecs didn't start around a major river, did they? And they still developped a civilization on their own.

	01-03-2005 22:09									#45
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

Yes, but 1) they also was much later and 2) they built on old civs, that didn't those I mentioned.

	01-03-2005 22:24									#46
	Remove this text

And the Aztecs started in a lake once they did establish a civilisation/city

	02-03-2005 00:36									#47
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

The "later" part is irrelevant imo since they settled America much later in the first place. You can say Aztecs built on previous civs, but then Meso Americans didn't. The lake is not a river, and lakes and rivers are modelled differently in civ. And how do you explain Incas or the previous civ that was there and was not near a river? Rivers and a mild climate make it easier to develop a civ, but then plains with horses make it easier to develop a later civ (scythes, huns, mongols, turks...).

	02-03-2005 02:08									#48
	Suffering from ads?

I would have to study the climate around Cuzco better during historic times. I know that it is now a desert-like area, but that might not always have been the case.

As far as my knowledge goes, Inka's were a conqueror people as well, but were also good at organizing their empire later on. I guess that way a badly situated capital could be provided with what it needed.

	02-03-2005 03:17									#49
	Increase Your PM Length

Inca? Titicaca lake comes to my mind, but I don't know what was its role. Anyway, I don't know to which extent rivers were a must but they got quite a role. Also, as it was mentioned, Inca and Aztecs follow earlier civs. Thus, it's a bit like saying "The American didn't start around a river". Nope... they got their first needs from what was already there for their use.

	02-03-2005 16:11									#50
	Get a bigger avatar today!

But you talked about Mesopotamians, who aren't a civ. There were Sumerians, Akkadians, Babylonians, Assyrians who followed one another... So you can as well say "Mesi Americans" instead of Aztecs teh way you used a generic term of Mesopotamians.
If Incas and Aztecs follow earlier civs, then explain how those earlier civs (Toltecs, Olmecs, or whoever you pick) started near a major river?
And anyway, Greece is about as old as India. They benefited from the middle east civs, and from Crete probably, but htye are an old civ unto themselves. Crete, Greece, didn't start near rivers.

	02-03-2005 23:44									#51
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by LDiCesare I am not against difference between civ, I am saying it doesn't have to be fixed. You could pick your traits when you start the game, and stick with the traits, and let the traits be random when you run the game the next time. A civ that builds the Pyramids is different (or should be) from one that doesn't. The behaviour of the ruler should vary from game to game, too. Unique units which are available based on environment/achievements instead of starting with the name 'chinese' add variety. I would like a civ that starts on an island to be better with ships than a civ who starts on a continent. I don't want to have the English be good shipbuilders in the middle of the desert. The think I am discussing is "fixed". That's what this thread is about, about UUs not being fixed the way they are in civ3. Sure UUs and traits add variety, but why can't they be random, obtained through picks from the start (the way you choose your picks in MoM, Galciv and how many other games) or obtained thanks to in-game history (being on an island, deciding to build exclusive wonder X)?

	03-03-2005 00:07									#52
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

I didn't think I would like it when Civ 3 first came out, but I like each civ having their own unique traits. That being said, I also like the idea being proposed here to have traits develop from environmental factors.

What I'd like to see is a combination. Every civ would have unique traits (as in Civ 3) as their primary traits. And environmental traits would act as secondary traits. Primary traits would be the same each time for any particular civ; and secondary traits would be different each game, depending on starting terrain, early choices, and other factors.

	03-03-2005 11:56									#53
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by LDiCesare Nikolai, Incas and Aztecs didn't start around a major river, did they? And they still developped a civilization on their own.

And the simple question becomes, what difference did no having a rive make the the nature of Aztec civlization? What did their location have to do with the developmnent of the aggresive state that became the Aztec empire?

Or, why did the Chinese civ, Indus civ, the Egyptian civ, and the Summerians, all which grew along the banks of great rivers, not turn out exactly the same? What made a difference?

The simple point is that cultural issue, which are born of history, NOT geography, in the end are what make civs differ- From the basics of language to religion, things that are at most losely tied to a geographic reality make a huge difference.

Another problem of oucrse is that the game if civ does not deal only with the first civs- most civs in the game are civs born into, our out of, previous civs like (all European civs for example, which took into themselves huge amounts of outside influences, or both the Aztecs and the Inca, neither civ being the first civ to inhabit those regions (both actually being very new political creation, neither more than 300 years old by the time of the Spanish conquest), and of course, the American civ.

In trhe end a map generator will not be able to sort out the basic cultural differences created throught time randomly that create the differences in civs that sitck in our minds.

	03-03-2005 14:43									#54
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

The Chinese lived on rice, which requires more cooperation than wheat to grow. The Japanese are an even better example of how geography shaped culture: When you have to grow rice on hills, your wall is also your border, so you have to collaborate with your neighbours. That's not true in plains.
Rivers helped spawn empires because you had an easy way to go from a point to another one using boats, because the floods made it necessary to build (canals for instance), thus to cooperate, in order not to lose all your seeds to the river. Compare that with Greece or MesoAmerica which saw city states: Communication was harder due to lack of river ( or vast open plains), and cooperation wasn't as needed as near a flood valley.
I agree that Babylonians and Egyptians were different, but the differences are not that big. They both had sacred, divine kings, used writing systems which were initially pictographs, cultivated the same plants, raised the same animals.

From a game point of view, they are not that different, and giving one a chariot special unit while the other gets an archer is totally arbitrary. I'm just asking that, if you discover horses and the wheel first, you should be able to have a unique unit of war chariot if you so choose. If you don't, someone else can pick it instead.
As for traits, I think they have been arbitrarily chosen and it should be up to the player to pick them. Why is Greece based on the Athenian image we've got rather than on the Spartan for instance, or on Alexander's Greece? Greece can favor a democratic government if you look at Athens, a monarchy at Alexander, or an oligarchy (probably best represented by communism) if you look at Sparta. Why impose this on the player?
Again, I am opposed to fixed traits and UUs, I'd rather pick them, either based on an initial choice (for stuff like religious) or on your environment (for elephants and being warlike).

	03-03-2005 20:58									#55
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by LDiCesare From a game point of view, they are not that different, and giving one a chariot special unit while the other gets an archer is totally arbitrary. I'm just asking that, if you discover horses and the wheel first, you should be able to have a unique unit of war chariot if you so choose. If you don't, someone else can pick it instead.

The problem is that that has really little do do with how these UU's in the game came to be. Take the Egyptian war chariot- It was not until after foreign invaders had brought horses to Egypt, several dynasties into the civilization, that war chariots came into being. So then what kind of UU would the egyptians have?

quote: As for traits, I think they have been arbitrarily chosen and it should be up to the player to pick them. Why is Greece based on the Athenian image we've got rather than on the Spartan for instance, or on Alexander's Greece? Greece can favor a democratic government if you look at Athens, a monarchy at Alexander, or an oligarchy (probably best represented by communism) if you look at Sparta. Why impose this on the player?

Government has little to do with traits, specially since you are free to chose a government. As for your point, yes, civs have had long histories- and you CAN choose any traits to you like, with minor use of the editor.

Of course, what is true of Greece is NOT true of Egypt, or Summeria, or say England. That is the problem in picking out special cases to try to prove a point.

quote: Again, I am opposed to fixed traits and UUs, I'd rather pick them, either based on an initial choice (for stuff like religious) or on your environment (for elephants and being warlike).

One, you do have a choice to pick traits- you can always chose to play your own civ, and thus are able to take any traits you like- as a playuer you have that freedom, NOT to chose a premade civ to try your own, with your own name, own city names, whatever.

As for the other issue, you don;t HAVE a choice of religion. in any sense of the word. And as for the environment, again, given the limited types of environment, unless we get far mroe complexity about environment, 9 out of 10 game4s will start the same, you on plain or grasslands on a river. What would these difference be based on?What size of area determines the choice?

	03-03-2005 21:11									#56
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by LDiCesare The Chinese lived on rice, which requires more cooperation than wheat to grow. The Japanese are an even better example of how geography shaped culture: When you have to grow rice on hills, your wall is also your border, so you have to collaborate with your neighbours. That's not true in plains.

"More cooperation"? Actually thought, Northern China grows wheat, NOT rice (areas like Beijing are not at all suitable for rice).

quote: Rivers helped spawn empires because you had an easy way to go from a point to another one using boats, because the floods made it necessary to build (canals for instance), thus to cooperate, in order not to lose all your seeds to the river.

Of course, perhaps is was because rives allow for easy irrigation, large food surpluses, large populations and bigger cities, and thus an ability to send people out.

quote: Compare that with Greece or MesoAmerica which saw city states: Communication was harder due to lack of river ( or vast open plains), and cooperation wasn't as needed as near a flood valley.

This of course would not explain the Aztecs, who grew up in a city state, but tried har to create an empire. And how would you account for the Inca, who grew in an environment even more difficult for transporation and communication (no mayor rivers, VERY high mountains) and yet formed an immense mountain empire?

quote: I agree that Babylonians and Egyptians were different, but the differences are not that big. They both had sacred, divine kings, used writing systems which were initially pictographs, cultivated the same plants, raised the same animals.

You know what, the same could be said of the Chinese, thought of course, pictograms can also be seen in the Maya, who had pictogram language, and the divine king was certainly and Inca trait. Yet the differences between Babylon and Egypt are great enough for anyoen to point out very simply if a piece of art or architecture is one , or the other.

If your annalysis holds, then there is no point in having more than one European civ for example-(specially give how much they shared in cultural heritage at the start), and the actual lkist of different civ types will be very small, again, because the conditions under which large agricultural communities that form Cities (a Civilization) are limited.

For mroe diversity, you need to get into cultural differences (yes, Greece and MesoAmerica had City state, but then, they were very different types of cultures, where they not?) that go beyond these differences (and why would anyone want to play City states that would then get swallowed by giant empires relatively quickly anyways?).

	03-03-2005 22:38									#57
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: So then what kind of UU would the egyptians have?

Mameluks?
City states ultimately become an empire. Check CtP2 Cradle mod for a good way of representing it as a government type.

Babs and Egyptians were very different from Turks, mongols or Greeks, and much more so than they differed one from another. And yes, what's the point of having different European civs from a Japanese or African point of view? The game is western centric, that's just a choice from Firaxis given its target audience. That and the fact that European civs had conquered most of the world around hte 19th century.

As for changing traits by modding, there's a difference between a menu that lets you choose your picks and launching an editor to mod the game. Wherever traits can be modified is not imediately straightforward to me when I launch civ3.

	04-03-2005 01:42									#58
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by LDiCesare Mameluks?

BUt Mameluks were turkish slaves of Arab masters of Egypt, in no way connected to the ancient Egyptian civ that is Egypt in the game (as opposed to the Arab civ)

quote: Babs and Egyptians were very different from Turks, mongols or Greeks, and much more so than they differed one from another. And yes, what's the point of having different European civs from a Japanese or African point of view? The game is western centric, that's just a choice from Firaxis given its target audience. That and the fact that European civs had conquered most of the world around hte 19th century.

Oh, I agree the game is Euro-centric. I can think of many civs that wouldbe more interesting, like Polynesians. That said, again,environmental determinism does not lead to cultural differences which form the backbone of the differences of Civilizations.

quote: As for changing traits by modding, there's a difference between a menu that lets you choose your picks and launching an editor to mod the game. Wherever traits can be modified is not imediately straightforward to me when I launch civ3.

Oh, I agree there that like in Civ2 a "use you own civ" button would be nice. That said, we already do know how to change the situation.

	04-03-2005 19:32									#59
	Full PM-box? Change here!

Since you are discussing all this, perhaps some of you would be interested in this article about "hydraulic empires". It's about rice, water, the need for hierarchization, etc.

	16-03-2005 01:46									#60
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

UU's in civ3 gave me a "window" in which I'd prefer military strategy, which gave the game more variety. As of feats, any feat tied to tech (except maybe early in the game) is unbalancing, but there was also the entertainment feat which could stimulate improvements, especially if civ4 retains culture. Maybe a medical feat too.