 |
| |
|
|
polypheus
|
|
United Nations of Earth
Jun 2001
time: 21:14
|
|
In a good Civ3 game, there certainly needs to a fair number of Civs that are technologically advanced. But for fun, realism, and gameplay, there needs to be regions of the world populated by technologically inferior Civs.
In other words, there should be a "European" equivalent continent, and a "New World" equivalent continent full of backwards Civs.
That way, you could simulate the exploration and conquest of the "New World".
And since nationality/culture is implemented in Civ3, when you wipe out these inferior Civs, they might revolt and revive themselves as new nations but inheriting your technology so they will become the equivalents of USAs and Mexicos.
If there are 16 Civs, you will need a several of them to act as the equivalents of European nations or China who are advanced and well developed but you will also need the equivalent of the Incas, Aztecs, etc. who were still in the stone age when Europeans already had cannons and big wooden ships.
And ideally the backwards Civs are grouped together and the advanced Civs are grouped together geographically.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
KrazyHorse
|
 |
Macedonia
May 2001
time: 00:14
|
|
Wow. That's the most Eurocentric statement I've heard in a while. This really is a scenario idea, and it was done fairly well in "The Age of Discovery" and similar works. Even civ-specific units are cheating a bit, in my opinion, since there really is no innate reason for the English to be good archers, but this seems all in good fun. There's even less reason for Europeans to be inherently smarter than anybody else. Indeed, as JMarks has pointed out, civilizations tend to swing back and forth, from advanced to backwards. Many of the "Third-World" countries of today were the science powerhouses of yesteryear. The entire Middle East springs to mind. As recently as 1000 A.D. Europe was merely a backwater. The real seats of civilization were around Constantinople, Mecca and Beijing. What rocketed the Europeans to dominance in the next 500 years (and I'm sure some of you may have different ideas) was their ready supply of cheap metals, such as tin and iron, and their desire for the luxury goods which Europe lacked.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ralf
|
 |
Sweden
Mar 2000
time: 06:14
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by polypheus
In a good Civ3 game, there certainly needs to a fair number of Civs that are technologically advanced. But for fun, realism, and gameplay, there needs to be regions of the world populated by technologically inferior Civs. |
No, I dont agree.  As many AI-civs as possible should be equal, or next to equal, with the human player. The AI-empires can be larger or smaller - more active or less active, yes. But the smaller and perhaps less active ones should then at least have clever anti-BAB (bigger always better) measures built into them, so that they nevertheless makes a worthwhile competitive contribution in terms of, for example, science & economy. No more forgotten AI left-over civs, please.
Also: perhaps even more important then AI-civs having a decent science-rate: Most (a majority) of all AI-civs (at least under emperor & diety play-level) should have a city-area production-output that is similar with that of any good human civ-player - or at least very close to that. And the more civil-minded AI-civs should have enough city-improvements in order to compete with the any civil-minded strong human Civ-player out there. If the AI-civs in Civ-3 cant achieve that - then everything else is lost as well.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ralf
|
|
Sweden
Mar 2000
time: 06:14
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by TechWins
Polypheus you better watch out on what you say. You might offend a lot of people with your non quoted comments of Europeans were better than the Native Americans. |
If "better" means better and more important as human beings in front of God, I agree. That would be wrong.
quote:
Which in some respect is true, but the two main reasons why the Indians got defeated were disease and too much trust. Not neccesarily less technology. |
Please, give me a brake  The native indians where technologically backward, and so where the native africans, at the time. Its a plain historical fact.
Also; I dont like the way that 1900-century native indians (or 1900-century native africans) nowadays always is portrayed as victimized peace-lovers (or in the 50:ies, and before: as evil & brutal savages only).
Why these extremes at both ends of the scale?
Both the native indians and the native africans was constantly involved in wars between them, long before the white man came along (as both the europeans and the asians also where, by the way). Its true though, that native indians was (is?) much more in contact with nature, then the white man ever was/is.
Last edited by Ralf on 20-06-2001 at 01:26
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Your.Master
|
|
Port Elgin, Ontario, Canada
Apr 2001
time: 05:14
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ralf
Please, give me a brake The native indians where technologically backward, and so where the native africans, at the time. Its a plain historical fact.
|
Actually, their tech was merely different. They had advanced architecture that didn't require nearly so much structural support as the Europeans needed, medicine as advanced and probably moreso than the French explorers who catalogued such things, they had the wheel and all sorts of other things but didn't use them because they were useless to them. That they had no gunpowder was Europe's main wartime advantage, and that came from China, not Europe. They had theorized "lost technologies" that the Europeans irrevocably destroyed with many Native Populations (don't put TOO much stock in that, but it's definitely possible). Their ships, weapons, and hunting equipment had unique things adopted by the Europeans. They also had a greater reception to progress, while Europe was just coming out of the "scientists are satanists" mentality.
Besides that, the main problem was, unless you are a creationist, the natives had less then half the time settled on a continent to get crackin' on technology than Europe, Africa, and Asia. Yet they *almost* matched it.
The one huge technological setback for the Natives was the lack of the capability to smelt iron. With that the world would be a much different place, namely the Europeans probably would not have North and South America. You can argue, but smelting iron leads to all of Europe's advantages barring disease.
I can't speak for or against the Africans, I have little knowledge about that area's techs besides the knowledge Ralf uses against them.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MORON
|
|
Vancouver, Canada
Jun 2001
time: 13:14
|
|
What is the fun of killing warriors with tanks.
I say NAH.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
polypheus
|
|
United Nations of Earth
Jun 2001
time: 21:14
|
|
I definitely agree that in Civ1/2, in which there was no concept of culture/nationality and no concept of strategic resources, and also with only 7 civs max, that technologically backwards civs add nothing to gameplay.
However, all of these features will be there for Civ3. Also we can only hope that at least 16 civs simultaneous Civs are in.
The purpose of having technologically backwards Civs located together is to simulate discovery and colonization of the "New World"-equivalent in a Civ3 game.
Yes, I know that this could be done in scenarios but I think that it should be a prominent feature of the game so that the "Age of Exploration" and "Conquest of the New World" become an almost regularly occuring feature of the game.
Conversely, under certain circumstances, you might even find yourself and your backwards neighbors being invaded from powerful distant Civs such as Aztecs, Incas, etc faced IRL.
It is more historically realistic and fun this way. As long as there are 16 civs, having say, 5, of technologically backwards Civs located together in the "New World" continent far away, there will still be 10 other Civs that are powerful and up to date to match the human player.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
KrazyHorse
|
|
Macedonia
May 2001
time: 00:14
|
|
Why the heck should the "Conquest of the New World" become a regularly occurring feature? Once you start determining ahead of time which events should occur, the game ceases being a game. Now it merely replays the single historical thread that this world followed. That being said, Native Americans were without a reasonable doubt less technologically advanced than Europe, the Middle East, North Africa and the Far East in all areas, from around 500 B.C. onwards.Even given iron working capabilities in, say, 1000 A.D., it would have required centuries to catch up to the developed world using their own resources. Now, I'm not saying that this is due to any lack of intellectual sophistication; on the contrary, I believe it entirely due to the isolation of North and South America. Civilization has only been independently developed in less than ten locations. The ones that come to mind are (in chronological order): Minoan, Egyptian, Harappan, Chinese and Olmec. The Minoan civilization began somewhere around 3500 B.C. and the Olmec around 1500 B.C. All of these civilizations began at around 25 degrees of lattitude in a river basin. Coincidence? Doubtful. Every other civilization on the planet owes its beginnings to an earlier civilization. Europe owes its civilization (through about three successors) mainly to the Minoan civilization. It becomes obvious that geographic isolation, by diminishing the sharing of ideas, is the prime determining factor in which cultures develop slowly.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lung
|
 |
of my princess Anastasia!
Mar 1999
time: 15:14
|
|
If you want Civ3 to play out like the history of the world, make a scenario! The suggestion to enforce certain things on certain civs or regions is ridiculous, as it only serves to reduce gameplay. No gameplay, no game  .
One thing that occured to me after playing Civ2 for a while, was that civs developed according to their environment, just like in the real world! What becomes apparent to you when you learn enough about human history is that we are all inherently the same, and perceived superiority over other people and countries is an illusion. "Superiority" in any sense, is only temporary, meaning that you are merely fortunate to be born in the right place at the right time. In any case, any advantage a civilisation has over others is always lost if they don't continue to improve - just like in Civ2 
In other words, the most realistic setup for Civ3 is the way they already intend it to be, not by any false "tilting of the playing field", as proposed by Polypheus.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Marquis de Sodaq
|
 |
... no, a Marquis.
Jul 2000
time: 23:14
|
|
Be careful how you formulate your ideas. To say that Indians and Africans were conquered because they were backward belies your ignorance. TechWins makes an excellent point - no amount of technology will help you when 3 of every 4 of your people die to a new disease. Whites only managed to even survive in the americas because the Indians kept them alive, showed them how to feed themselves in an alien environment, and were hospitable to strangers. In return, they were backstabbed endlessly and massacred. They were inferior to whites militarily, but were more advanced in other facets of knowledge - agricultural, mathematics, medicine. The white way destroyed the land - the Indian way of balance with nature couldn't keep up with the desecration, and they were unseated.
Africans were also victims of inferior military technology, but you would be very hard pressed to convince anybody that superiority of europeans extended beyond the guns they carried. Africans were also bullied into succumbing to the rule of the invaders.
Learn more about this age of "discovery." Colonization was a cruel process that benefitted only the colonizer at GREAT expense to the victims. The europeans and their decendants were cruel, arrogant, and short-sighted, and won because they were better armed. NOT because they were technologically superior in a more rounded sense. 
(Edited to tone down the vehemence a bit...)
Last edited by Marquis de Sodaq on 21-06-2001 at 17:12
|
|
| |
|
|
|
KrazyHorse
|
|
Macedonia
May 2001
time: 00:14
|
|
Marquis de Sodaq, I was going to use quotes, but I realized that I would have had to quote your entire post. It is true to say that if the Native Americans had not been so divided and had been initially more hostile, the story in North America might have been slightly different. The early attempts at European colonization were not backed up very well, and would have been easily dislodged. Later attempts could not have been so trivially dealt with, as the European technology advantage was growing yearly. Regard New Zealand. Whites were attacked whenever they showed their faces there, but by the middle of the nineteenth century, Europeans controlled more than half of the island, and by the beginning of the twentieth century, the Maoris were simply a disadvantaged minority group living in a white colony. In the nineteenth century, there were largescale "Indian Wars" in the American West, which were unwinnable on the native side. The simple density of population made possible by your "white way" allowed the whites to sustain an industrial production orders of magnitude larger than the natives. I have no clue where you got the idea that Native Americans were somehow more advanced in mathematics, agriculture, or medicine at any time after 1000 A.D. Native agriculture was either nonexistent (in the case of the nomads), practiced at the level of slash-and-burn horticulture (by the sedentary native North Americans), or pacticed with basic irrigation skills by the true "civilizations" (the word comes from that for "cities", after all) of Central America. Mathematics? In the mid-seventeenth century Europe had discovered calculus. Medicine? What was the average life expectancy of natives? What was that of Europeans at the time? The answers are around 30 and 45 respectively. Finally, don't presume to state that Europeans are somehow "crueller" than Native Americans. Men are what their circumstances make them, and if the Native Americans had had the chance to plunder Europe, they would have done it as swiftly as the Europeans plundered their continent. If you want to continue this discussion, why don't we move to the Off-Topic forum?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
JMarks
|
 |
formerly known as the artist
Mar 2000
time: 05:14
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Marquis de Sodaq
Be careful how you formulate your ideas. To say that Indians and Africans were conquered because they were backward belies your ignorance. TechWins makes an excellent point - no amount of technology will help you when 3 of every 4 of your people die to a new disease. Whites only managed to even survive in the americas because the Indians kept them alive, showed them how to feed themselves in an alien environment, and were hospitable to strangers. In return, they were backstabbed endlessly and massacred. They were inferior to whites militarily, but were more advanced in other facets of knowledge - agricultural, mathematics, medicine. The white way destroyed the land - the Indian way of balance with nature couldn't keep up with the desecration, and they were unseated.
Africans were also victims of inferior military technology, but you would be very hard pressed to convince anybody that superiority of europeans extended beyond the guns they carried. Africans were also bullied into succumbing to the rule of the invaders.
Learn more about this age of "discovery." Colonization was a cruel process that benefitted only the colonizer at GREAT expense to the victims. The europeans and their decendants were cruel, arrogant, and short-sighted, and won because they were better armed. NOT because they were technologically superior in a more rounded sense.
(Edited to tone down the vehemence a bit...) |
Please, let us be careful that we don't fall into another pitfall here. Native bashing is bad, but hey, even inavader bashing is bad. Any power hungry leader can use general ignorance (particularly ignorance of faith) to get 'right' on ones side. And to generalize all Europeans that way, while making the natives 'peaceful' and 'enlightened' humans, only inferior in weapons, is to invite uncalled for biased. The natives were just as corruptable as Europeans, because they were both humans. Power does NOT corrupt. Power reveals corruption.
While a few of the natives, particularly in Mexico, might have at one time been particularly ept at Mathematics, I don't know if it is true that the inhabitants of that region at the time of European conquest were any better than the invaders. Take the Pueblo. Their ancesters knew tons of stuff about the stars and sun and built whole towns based on astronomical alignments and what not. But by the time the Europeans came along, the people themselves knew little or nothing. Technology doesn't just advance, it regressess too! Unfortunatly Civ is to evolutionary to do this at all! Every race that can be thought of has at one time or another, thought themselves superior to all other races based on ignorance to the fact that we are all one blood. The Europeans, the Japanese, the Chinese, the Native Amercians (I hate that term because it somehow infers that I don't belong here, even though I am a native to America), the Arabs, etc, etc, etc, even among themselves!
So to conclude, leave the playing field level. This makes for a much more interesting game. If it is tilted, then it will always fall in a predictable way!
Ioanes
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Marquis de Sodaq
|
|
... no, a Marquis.
Jul 2000
time: 23:14
|
|
Okay, I knew I'd get hit for the rant. That's fine. Stuff like this gets me riled up.
Krazyhorse, the Indians of the americas were many civs - saying that they were advanced in several areas, I didn't mean to imply that all tribes were such. That was not the case. A blanket reply to a blanket statement that all were backward.
Regarding the tide of whites who came here, you are correct that the overwhelming of the Indians may have been inevitable. But up until well into the 17th century, that was not the case. After that period, yes, the europeans made great leaps ahead of the rest of the world in many fields, and their sheer numbers would have won out even without these advantages.
Indian agriculture was actually very well developed in terms of productivity, which is why it came to mind in my rant. The slash-and-burn was not always so, but the eastern woodlands Indians of north america, the central american peoples, and the northers south american peoples had (some still have) farming methods even more productive than western ag methods until the advent of massive chemical use. More varied crops, more nutrition, more calories produced per acre. Incan ag was fairly advanced, as well. You are right that europeans were on par. My point was that the Indians were not "backward."
Mayan mathematic accomplishments are well documented, and calendrical systems throughout the hemisphere also relied on higher math. Europeans surpassed this, but again, as time went on.
Indian medicines practices of south and central america have almost been wiped out, but fortunately for you and everybody else here, they have persisted. Countless modern commercial medicines originated there. Most have been isolated by whites only after the Indians showed them what plants to use for what conditions. Searches without the aid of knowledgable locals have proven amazingly difficult and often fruitless effort.
No, cruelty is not a quality unique to any people, you are correct. What was carried out historically earns this word, not the potential any people might have for it.
JMarks, you are correct that real civs advance and decline with time. Many anecdotes could be brought up of people amazed by what their ancestors accomplished, but who have absolutely no concept of how they did it. Same people, same place, but times had changed, knowledge was lost. BTW, Indians (in the US, anyway) usually prefer "Indians" to "Native Americans." (Okay, another generality, let it slide...)
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Your.Master
|
|
Port Elgin, Ontario, Canada
Apr 2001
time: 05:14
|
|
quote:
Your.Master, I don't think the lack of time really mattered.
Don't try to get this meaning out of my statement. I had no intention or showing of me believing Natives as being this way. |
It did matter b/c civs start late in civ II too.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:14.
Apolyton Time is 00:14. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
19-06-2001 05:42
|