 |
| |
|
|
Stefu
|
 |
CLOWNS WIT DA DOWNS 4 LIFE YO!
Jan 1970
time: 07:12
|
|
While no special abilities should be fixed to civilizations, how about giving them one preferred Soc. Eng setting they will strive for, just like in SMAC, and make them angry to people who have different Soc. Eng setting in that category. For instance, if Greeks strive for Knowledge, they would shun Americans who only want Wealth. I doubt this even would be rasistic, as all examples can be clearly based on history: For instance, Zulus were nation that lived off war (It was their mean of getting cattle) and had huge, well trained standing army. Therefore, logically Zulus would have Power in their values settings.
My other proposal deals with Civ breakups. In rules.txt, there should be specified several nations that could be the independence-wanting parts of breaking-up empire. Here are some:
Americans: Confederates - Texans - Californians
Germans: Prussians - Austrians - Swiss
English: Canadians - Australians - South Africans
Celts: Irish - Scots - Welsh
Russians: Ukrainians - Poles - Finns Vikings: Swedes - Norwegians - Danes
Romans: Palmyrans - Byzantine - Bosporans?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Stuff2
|
|
U have a point.
But things like these can change over time.
The swedish people was once the terrifying vikings that robbed what they could from other countries. The strive in sweden right now is to be very good at IT-techs and enviromental-friendly techs. We have changed from power to knowledge.
But i like the idea in a way. But no fixed nationalities, please! Make it random, and it can be changed over a period of time.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
bogi
|
|
One suggestion Russians: Ukrainians - Chechens
|
|
| |
|
|
|
fryman
|
|
columbia heights, mn
Mar 2000
time: 05:12
|
|
I think in that civ's should be more prone to split or have a revolution. IN the old civ's it was ultra rare to ever see a split in a civ. I must have only seen it happen twice and I have played Civ II for 100's of hours if not 1000's of hours. It has happened a lot more in history than most people think.
------------------
Buddha said, "What isn't enlightenment?"
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Europe will be ridiculously crowded with Civs if we add more to the already large list of Romans, Germans, Spanish, French, English, Russians, Greeks, Vikings, etc...It is undeniable that Europe consists of so many different nations, but if you group each nation into a common Civ, you have Europe split into the previously mentioned Civs. The last thing the game needs is more Civs in Europe. I can see adding an Australian Civ or an Indonesian Civ and perhaps a Brazilian or Argentinean Civ...but no more in Europe please!
As for civil wars, I agree wholeheartedly. The only real way that a civ has civil war is if the capitol is overtaken. I think that if an empire reaches a large size that it should undergo a civil war (and it should not necessarily be known to the player that it is going to happen). For example, if the Americans start of as the only civ in the Western Hemisphere and by the time 500 AD roles around is occupying the entire continents of North and South America, a civil war should break out. Some stipulations of course (I can't think of any at the moment) but you get the idea. I also think the breakaway civ should be somewhat organized on which cities become the new civ. Why should random cities jump ship to the new civ during the Civil war? There should be some reason why a city joins the other civ. It's a great idea to have the Civs break up according to current geography (E.G. When the Russians undergo civil war, the Ukrainians would be a good choice for the new civ, not the Zulus.)
------------------
~~~I am who I am, who I am - but who am I?~~~
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Atahualpa
|
 |
Hawthrone
Mar 1999
time: 06:12
|
|
See, when you say: "no more civs in europe" it is okay for you, because you live somewhere in the US (PA) and not in Europe. However, I live in Europe and I would like to see a game where I can choose MY nationality!
What would you say if you couldnt choose the US! Would you play with Natives all the time?
Sorry, its just a bit arrogant to say: "no dont add more civs there it is already crowded"
Europe is crowded, but crowded with different people. French are not Germans, Germans are not British, Spanish are not French, Italian are completely different. Belgium and Netherlands are different too. Then there is Denmark and Sweden and Norge and Finnland and they are all different (and no, Austria is for 100% not Germany!). I guess Finns dont like it when they are called Swedes. So I dont like it when I have to play with the Germans all the time.
Isnt it understandable that everyone (at least once) want to play his own civ?
Iam not nationalistic or so. Dont get me wrong, but when I see the list of civs to choose from and I cant find one, I really would like to choose my own. But sadly it isnt there 
Ata
|
|
| |
|
|
|
tniem
|
|
Hope College
Apr 2000
time: 00:12
|
|
Make civs totally customizable like factions in Alpha. That way we could add to the civs that you can choose from. It would also be cool if Firaxis released a civ a month and a map or scenario that we can play on every week after release. It would keep my interest high in the game.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
tniem
|
|
Hope College
Apr 2000
time: 00:12
|
|
I agree with Grumbold that Firaxis' time is better spent elsewhere and leave creating civs to the fans. However there needs to be a balance if points are given in certain directions to civs as has been previously discussed. I think this would be a good addition if it is allowed to be turned off so as not to offend anyone (especially for those nations that are still around). So that you cannot overload your Tniem empire so that it has a science and war advantage over the Romans
|
|
| |
|
|
|
ts
|
|
Tuusula, Finland
Jan 1970
time: 05:12
|
|
Hi all! it's been a long time since I post something in here, the last time might have been at the new ideas forum for CTP.
Atahualpa is right, we finns don't like if someone called us swedes, russians, or even vikings. Finland is completely different. Our culture is scandinavian, capitalized and material somewhat like yours in US, Canada, Australia, England and other "western-countries" but the people look different from eg. the swedes. The language is something you can't find anywhere else. The grammar is a bit similar to hungarian but almost all the words are our own, small amount taken from swedish or russia. I'm nationalistic but not too much, I'm Finnish not European. I know it's just a bit over 5 million of over 6 billion people living on this planet, but it sounds like you in "America" could replace all the civs in Europe with only one, The Europeans. And please don't fill up the empty areas of the map with Brazil or Australia etc. Use native people for that. The idea of having a civilization to break up into other civs is great. That just doesn't really work with the countries of Europe, especially not Finland. Rather leave Finnish out of the game than let them continue after Russia or the Vikings loose. Finland is not a nation whose people were sometime a real part of some other nation, two countries, first sweden then russia just happened to occupy this piece of land the finns were living in. None of the finns ever thought they were swedish or russian.
Every country I've been to (almost every country in Europe, only some in south eastern Europe unvisited.) is different from the others. I bet everyone who lives in Europe feels the same way.
Maybe Firaxis could make Europe larger, or make the squares smaller in Europe. CTP went way over the line when they put eg. Jamaica to the game, Firaxis, don't over do it!! I'm actually happy about the civs in civ2. In Civ2 if I want to play Finnish, I can always take Vikings, change the name of the tribe and walk a few squares with my settler, then press "B" and build a city named "Helsinki" 
There you have some info about Finland..
I didn't intend to offend anyone, if I did I apologize. This whole subject just feels really irritating sometimes.
-werewolf
[This message has been edited by ts (edited April 11, 2000).]
|
|
| |
|
|
|
dont we already have ability to use custom name for civs ??? why doe sthis need adding to civ 3 ...
perhpas you want ability to name all your oponents in SP .. a i play MP I always choose custom civ and dont care about name si fighting against...
And i change all my city names to my names using RENAME option... I dont bother with city list in citys.txt
|
|
| |
|
|
|
ts
|
|
Tuusula, Finland
Jan 1970
time: 05:12
|
|
the only thing you need real civs for is when you're playing on Earth. You have all the real starting locations ready, and sometimes it's fun to re-write the history.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Charles the Third
|
|
I agree with Steve Clark. Further, the original topic suggestion, of having each civilization be stronger in a specific social trait, seems uncomfortably close to the idea that certain "races" of humanity possess certain traits. The way that it is right now, any civilization can develop in any way the player wants, is best.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
tniem
|
|
Hope College
Apr 2000
time: 00:12
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by JellyDonut
Good luck getting Firaxis to make such things for free! |
Maybe your right but it was Firaxis that said they are working on SimGolf so they could learn from Maxis on how to build an online community. Releasing some scenarios and custom civs from time to time would help do that after release.
By the way, why did you respond to a post I made over ten months ago?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
red_jon
|
 |
Uni of Wales Swansea
Oct 2000
time: 05:12
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Stefu
While no special abilities should be fixed to civilizations, how about giving them one preferred Soc. Eng setting they will strive for, just like in SMAC, and make them angry to people who have different Soc. Eng setting in that category. For instance, if Greeks strive for Knowledge, they would shun Americans who only want Wealth. I doubt this even would be rasistic, as all examples can be clearly based on history: For instance, Zulus were nation that lived off war (It was their mean of getting cattle) and had huge, well trained standing army. Therefore, logically Zulus would have Power in their values settings. |
OK, so which civs get which goals? (Going by the SMAC social engineering)
Here are some of my ideas...
English - Power/Democratic
The British Empire and the birthplace of modern democracy (Parliament, Magna Carta).
French - Wealth
Swine have always been rich 
Americans - Free Market/Democratic
The first proper democracy and the main capitalist nation. McDonalds anyone?
Zulus - Power/Police State
They were militaristic and hardly democratic...
Chinese - Knowledge/Police State
Many great inventions and discoveries come from China, as well as a history of oppressive governments.
Greeks - Knowledge/Democratic
I don't think anyone can argue here
Romans - Power
They were very powerful...
Russians - Power/Planned Economy
Soviets...
Japanese - Power/ Free Market
Perhaps the most commercially influential Asian nation. And the WW2 thing
Egyptians - Wealth
Any thoughts?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Crouchback
|
|
It’s not who one is but where one is that determines my strategy.
If I my little band starts off as sole occupants of a small island off a large crowded continent I will develop a commercial/scientific approach. But put me on the continent and I'll tend to be more concerned with a strong military and expanding my empire.
Pity we can't chose whom to play after we've found out where we're going to be playing.
David
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:12.
Apolyton Time is 00:12. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
24-03-2000 10:27
|