 |
|  |
 |
|
ajbera
|
 |
of the Cookieville Minimum Security Orphanarium
Apr 1999 time: 05:15
|
|
According to the color-coding on the Civ abilities chart posted by Firaxis (http://www.civ3.com/devupdate_civspecific.cfm), America is grouped with Aztec and Iriquois, creating a North American culture group, which is weird.
One of the first things I'll do is change the American culture group to that of the European nations (England, France, Germany) to indicate common heritage. It's been said that you can negotiate more favoarbly with civs who have a culture similar to yours:
From the Gamestar interview (http://www.gamesweb.de/index.php?si...iew=641&seite=4):
How will different governments govern trade - are trade alliances between similar ideologies easier to maintain?
Jeff (Morris): To a certain degree. Culture has a far bigger impact though, where culturally similar civilizations are more likely to make gracious agreements. Also, if your culture is far better than theirs, they will be more flexible in what kinds of arrangements they'd find acceptable.
America and the Western European nations have the most similar cultures (IRL), and are strong trade and military allies because of that. Some of the other countries may also have to be shuffled (in my game, anyway.) Just wondering what y'all thought of this.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Akron
|
|
Good point! Could this determine architecture? I hope not, as the Americans should not have architecture similar to the Aztecs.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
|
and if the Americans are part of the iroquois/aztec culture, we can probably use the much-touted editor to change this.
Actually I would put the US and most new world nations in the special category of post-colonial nations as opposed to European nations. Nations like US, Canada, Mexico, Peru, Cuba, Brazil, etc. really are very different from both their Euro colonizers or the indigenous people from the past. Each is characterized by racial tensions arising from the colonial and slavery periods, marginalized indegenous peoples, and so on.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Ironwood
|
|
Fresno, CA
Oct 2001 time: 21:15
|
|
One thing that needs to be realized is that it's difficult to group all of history into 7 groupings. One has to pick and choose, and I suppose one choice is as good as another (though I can imagine some horrible choices). It'll be really cool to utilize this for scenario purposes, though, since there, you can narrow your scope. For example, were I to make a WWI scenario, this is how I'd group it:
Anglo: Britain, US, Canada, Australia, associated colonies.
Germanic: Germany, Austria-Hungary, associated colonies.
Slavic: Russia, Serbia, etc.
Romanic: Italy, France, Spain, associated colonies
Turkic(sp?): Ottoman Empire, other muslim caliphates
(I named them "Turkic" since this is, after all, a Eurocentric war)
Oriental: Gross oversimplification of China, Japan, etc.
Everything Elsian: Gross oversimplification of everything south of the US and the Sahara (except South Africa: Anglo)
Were I to do a more present day grouping, I'd do this:
Anglo: Same as before, possibly including India
European: Combination of Germanic and Romanic, plus maybe Japan
Slavic: As before, plus other "slavic" countries
Islamic: As Turkic, with border shifting, etc.
Chinese: China Proper, plus Vietnam, N. Korea, etc.
Latin American: Everything south of the border.
African: Sub-saharan, maybe including South Africa, maybe not.
Were I to do a "Roman Imperial" era one (like the Rise of Rome in Civ2), I'd do this:
Hellenic (possibly including Rome), Celtic, Germanic (they just don't go away, do they? ), Phonecian (Carthage), Jewish (gotta give them their own grouping), Persian, Egyptian. Not too sure about those last two, but you get the idea.
once again, I write a really long post that likely won't get read for that very reason. I really gotta start narrowing my own scope. 
|
|
|  |
 |
|
jsw363
|
|
I wonder if you'll be able to randomize the cultural associations. So that you're not always playing with the same civs against other civs. I am not sure that I like the connections between culturally similar countries. Wars break out most often between countries that are contiguous anyways, so how much will this similarity of culture affect gameplay?
I'd also group the US with the Europeans. Americans have much more in common with Europe than the Aztecs...
|
|
|  |
 |
|
|
>>Mister Pleasant looking at Civ Specifics table<<
This is why an editor is included. Although, I have to admit that its pretty close to the way I'd do it myself. Think of it this way
Classical: Greek, Roman, Egyptian
Asian: Indian, Chinese, Japanese
Euro: England, France, Germany, Russia
American: US, Aztec, Iroquois
But this grouping puzzles me: Zulu, Babylonian, Persian
Fine, Persian and Babylonian go together, but Zulu?
Got me on this one.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Morley
c'mon that's ****ing (sorry, couldn't resist ) easy. Where the hell else do you put them? Plus, the numbers come out about right this way. |
Obviously that's the reason, what I can't figure out is why - pragmatics aside - they would be put there.
|
|
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:15. Apolyton Time is 00:15. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|