 |
| |
|
|
hHydro
|
|
Vancouver, Canada,
Nov 2000
time: 05:12
|
|
On the topic of differing cultures, Has anyone considered giving the units of these cultures a look and feel based on a 'city-style' as in Civ 2?
For example, if you are able to chose between 5 or so different architecture types at the start, (such as greco-roman, or oriental) it wouldn't be all that difficult to have your infantry reflect the style of that choice. Especially if they use a graphic system similar to SMAC.
An oriental Spearman for example could have a corresponding body with a spear graphic, wheras the same unit designed halfway across the world would instead use an anglo-saxon body or roman centurian-style body... but it would still be holding a spear. Heck.. using that idea, once gunpowder is discovered, you could just replace the spear with a gun, and now you've still got two identical units that look like they fit their culture.
This would probably be easier to accomplish with SMACs voxel-ish technology than Civ2s sprites, but even with sprites you could do a 'paper-doll' type design.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
S. Kroeze
|
 |
the Hague, the Netherlands, Old Europe
Dec 1999
time: 05:12
|
|
Dear Dark Cloud,
There is absolutely no reason to apologize. In general I think you are doing a good job, though I sometimes disagree with your conclusions.
Yet I still object to your original statement:
"The Celts were stationed in the England part of the world at the time of the Roman Empire....."
I hope I have made it clear that a Celt can be defined as someone who speaks a Celtic language. So when you would have said: "Some Celts were stationed in the England part of the world at the time of the Roman Empire...", I wouldn't have objected at all.
And indeedsome other Celts, viz. the Gauls, were the ancestors of the French, like the Celtiberians, also Celts, were the ancestors of the Spanish. Sooner or later most of these Celtic peoples were subjected by the Romans. As a result some even changed their language!
And though the Romans and Greeks certainly considered them to be 'barbarians', they were during the first millennium BC more advanced than many a so-called 'Major Tribe'.
Sincere regards,
S. Kroeze
P.S.: In a previous post you mentioned the fact that you couldn't find the magnificent Indus civilization in your 'Map of History'. Since this civilization was destroyed about 1500BC this doesn't surprise me....
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
first of all, finns are no slavic people at all (unlike polish and ucrainians). they are part of the "finno-ugrian"-group, which include hungarians, estonians and finnish people as the biggest sub-groups.
2nd: celts: i also agree with s.kroeze but only for academical purposes: the celts also inhabited the reigns of raetia (~switzerland) and noricum (~austria) and as far as southern poland/ukraine (galicia) and even came until today's turkey (galata)
|
|
| |
|
|
|
S. Kroeze
|
|
the Hague, the Netherlands, Old Europe
Dec 1999
time: 05:12
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by wernazuma on 01-06-2001 10:54 AM
if such tribes are included we'd also have to include mexican semi-nomadic tribes as the chichimecs and many more. i don't think that leads anywhere. i wouldn't consider them "civilizations"
one should consider that before we begin to speak of civilizations like the indus-culture for example.
|
What do you intend to say by this remark?
A quotation about the Indus civilization:
quote:
"There followed a long period of slow evolution, which gathered momentum towards the end and resulted in the spectacular Indus Valley Civilization (or the Harappa Culture as it has been more recently named) in c. 2300 B.C. The antecedents of the Harappa Culture are the village sites of the Baluchistan hills - the Nal Culture, and of the Makran coast to the west of the Indus delta - the Kulli Culture, and certain of the village communities along the rivers in Rajasthan and Punjab.
The Harappa Culture was the most extensive of the ancient civilizations in area, including not only the Indus plain (the Punjab and Sind), bus also northern Rajasthan and the region of Kathiawar in western India. It was essentially a city culture and among the centres of authority were the two cities of Mohenjo-daro and Harappa. These were maintained from the surplus produce of the country, judging by the elaborately constructed granaries found in both cities. Another source of income was the profit from a flourishing trade both within the northern and western areas of the sub-continent and between the people of this culture and those of the Persian Gulf and Mesopotamia.
The cities show evidence of an advanced sense of civic planning and organization. Each city was divided into the citadel area, where the essential institutions of civic and religious life were located, and the residential area where the urban population lived.
Among the many remains of the Harappa culture perhaps the most puzzling are the seals - small, flat, square, or rectangular objects with a pictorial motif, human or animal, and an inscription. The latter remains undeciphered and holds promise of interesting information when it can be finally read.
By 1700 B.C. the Harappa culture had declined and the migration of the Indo-Aryans from Iran in about 1500 B.C. introduced new features into the cultural background of north-western India.
There is evidence of the Proto-Australoid, the Mediterranean, Alpine, and Mongoloid in the skeletal remains at Harappan sites. The Mediterranean race is generally associated with Dravidian culture.
The last to come were the people commonly referred to as Aryans. Aryan is in fact a linguistic term indicating a speech-group of Indo-European origin, and is not an ethnic term."
(R. Thapar: A History of India")
|
As you will surely notice this civilization meets all criteria of a true civilization: agriculture, cities, writing and organized religion! Of course some consider it only a forerunner of the Indian/Brahmanic civilization. Because of the great gap in time -roughly a millennium- I would argue otherwise.
The Maya and Aztecs were in my opinion both part of one Meso-American civilization. It is true that the Aztecs were more powerfull. Their relationship is more or less the same as between Babylonians and Assyrians: the first created a civilization (actually the Sumerians did), the second were a nation of warriors who conquered most of the Middle East but were culturally nothing but a continuation of their betters. And of course the Babylonians survived longer. I wonder what would have happened to the Aztecs if the Spanish hadn't arrived.
But such conclusions will always be debatable.
The essential point in this eternal discussion is that half of the posters don't seem to understand the difference between a civilization and a nation-state/empire. Is this really so difficult to grasp?!?
Civilizations are NOT IDENTICAL with political structures, nor with one ethnic group, nor with one linguistic family!!
As a rule its religion and cultural identity that ultimately defines a civilization.
The game CivII acknowledges this difference; its makes clear that a Republic should be understood as a federation of city states all belonging to the same culture.
Its true that not all "original" civilizations existed in 4000BC, but some of them did: the Sumerian, Egyptian, Indus and Chinese. Then some more creative posters came with the idea of introducing the rise AND fall of civilizations: today the only civilization clearly still there, is the Chinese, which is an achievement in itself. Hurrah for the Chinese!!
And why should all civilizations start at the same date? I think the game could be made much more interesting for the advanced player if he could choose a late-starting civilization. A player could earn points for every year his civilization existed. Nor should military defeat necessarily spell the end of a civilization! Normally a civilization will absorb the conqueror through assimilition.
To those intelligent readers really interested in the concept of a civilization I would like to recommend W.H.McNeill: "The rise of the West(1963)"
If a small nation without any historical importance like the Nicaraguans or the Texans would be included, the Indian civilization alone could be divided in about hundred different nations who were politically important during the last 3000 years; Aryans, Dravidians, Magadhans, Guptas, Shakas, Kushanas, Tamils, Chalukyas, Pallavas, Pandyas, Cholas, Rajputs, just to name some. Nice idea!
Time and again I am surprised by the lack of any substantial knowledge -even by otherwise well-informed people- about the history and cultures of India, one of the three great Civilizations of mankind!
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
TacticalGrace
|
 |
Invisible, Silent, Deadly.
Jan 2001
time: 05:12
|
|
Having small nations like Scottish, Irish, Nicarguans, Toltecs, Mayans etc as was implemented in CTP is all very nice in theory. After all, historically these groups all existed and were historically important. But having played CTP games where you end up against an Irish Empire, for example, it really does not have the same impact as a good old fashioned game of CIV2 with a showdown between England and Germany, or Rome and Greece.
So how do we resolve this?
we want to have a starting Civ name e.g.:
Britons, Romans, Egyptians, Greeks
these at key points in time can either split or simply change name. A split would have to be caused by either extreme unhappiness (CTP) or capitol capture (Civ2). A name change could be activated by a tech (ancient->renaissence->modern age) or when a nation is captured
so now
Britons -> English -> British
Roman -> Italian
Aztec -> Mexican
I would argue that there really shouldn't be an "American" civ. Some sort of Native American maybe. Of course a civil war in the British, French or Spanish civs would lead to a new civ of the Americans.
Of course I'm sure there are loads of people out there who like to play the Americans in Civ and you can go ahead and do that. I just find it a bit unsatisfying to meet a civ in 2000bc which calls themselves the Americans led by Abraham Lincoln.
Possibly some notion of Enthnicity within a civ should be included (Just for the sake of flavour though, only affecting naming and unit/city style). So invaded cities would retain there ethnic origins and get absorbed into the invading civ.
As far as "barbarians" are concerned, please be aware that this was actually a roman term for just about anyone who wasn't Roman (All they heard of the foreign language was a "bar bar" noise). It was rather equivalent to the Japanese "Gajin", the Hebrews "Gentile" the Americans "johnny foreigners" in that other peoples were assumed uncultured. Of course an untrue premise but barbarian came to mean that anyway. In civ2 game terms, warlike minor civs are modelled as the barbarians, peaceful minor civs as goody huts.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
bagdar
|
 |
Turkey
Jan 2001
time: 07:12
|
|
quote:
I too care about historical accuracy in Civ, but I have to disagree on this point, because once again, we have hit the border between simhistory and civ game. It's the same question as whether it is historically accurate for you to live for 6000 years in your long and prosperous reign. Sure, in 4000BC most of the original Civs don't sound right, but dividing the game in two is not a good idea either. If you ask me, (and why would anyone ask me, anyway ) I'd either keep the distribution of the civs as it is, or abandon the current naming of Civs altogether and give them generic names, based on geography. In fact, in the first case, if you use your imagination, you'd see that there's no need to increase the number of civilizations or worry about the history of nationalities: we have 3 civs from Africa, one from the south, one from the north west and one from the north east; we've got two middle eastern civs, 3 mediterraneans, 4 west European civs, 1 east European Civ, 1 civ from central asia, 1 from south asia and 2 from east asia, as well as 2 north Americans and one central American civ. That covers much more than the places where civilization actually sprung. (well, civ is not always played on the earth map, but the Civs it employs are real terrestrial civs. )--Besides, this also explains why unalterable unique civs is such nonsense.-- Why keep on expanding the list, or divide the game into modern/ancient versions? I remember that there was a forum with a family tree of some sort of nationalities. I don't think we need this. However, now that the website has declared a new feature in Civ games, that of nationality, we may expect exciting new things to do with national identities etc. Let's wait and see.
|
I wrote this under the Modern/Ancient Civs topic. I think your idea of Civs changing names is interesting. I always felt that something was wrong with the English popping out of the Zulu when you capture their capital. Maybe there could be a solution to this as well.
** By the way, now that this topic is brought up again, let me make a comment: I saw both the Seljuks and the Ottomans as absolutely necessary civs on the previous page. Well, they are only dynasties, and the 'nationality' factor in the Ottomans is very very low (none, if you don't count the very beginning -when they were inhabiting a town under the rule of the Rum Seljuks and the very end -when they had to come up with ideologies to hold the crumbling state together-). Anyway, as I said before, the original Civilization tribes suffice for me. Nothing more. (there could be new features, though  )
[This message has been edited by bagdar (edited January 23, 2001).]
|
|
| |
|
| |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
01-12-2000 02:17
|
|