 |
|
St Leo
|
 |
Member of the Apolyton Social Democratic Party
Jul 2005
time: 00:12
|
|
Off the top of my head, the "English" are the people who occupy the largest part of the British Isles and have been invaded, conquered, occupied (in whole or part) and generally roughly handled by the Romans, Saxons, Irish, Norse, Vikings and Normans to name but a few.
Off the top of my head, the "English" are Saxons( +Angles +Jutes +Frisians +Whatever) who dispaced Celts (as in Welsh, Britons, Scots, Picts, and Irish) and were for brief periods of time ruled by Romans and Vikings (Danes, Norwegians, Normans).
------------------
St. Leo
http://www.sidgames.com/hosted/ziggurat/
http://www.sidgames.com/forums/
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
TheAuk
|
|
Surely the killer argument against hardcoded values is the number of civs that are likely to be involved.. I think that SMAC factions worked remarkably well (although SMAX ones less so) in terms of game balance, but the likelihood of getting 30 or so different civs with different SE/whatever attributes right without making some huge howlers is pretty low.
I do think that it would be a big shame however if it wasn't possible to creat scenarios that had some hardcoded characteristics built in. The SE system worked well in SMAC since the whole storyline/world was based around them - it is easy to see situations where a scenario editor would want to create civs with very strong personalities.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Diodorus Sicilus
|
|
Steilacoom, WA, USA
May 1999
time: 05:12
|
|
Roman, your original comment regarding the War of 1812 does make a very important point in the "hardwired characteristics" debate: how can any one event no matter how important to anyone at the time define the characteristics of a civilization that, in the game, may last for 6000 years or more? To use the English (or Southern British?) as an example, do you give them a defining characteristic based on Stonehenge Building, Shakespearean Theater, Steam-Powered Industrial Revolution, Parliamentary Democracy or Aggressive Naval Traditions - just to name a few elements in their history.
To include specialized set characteristics for civs in CivIII would only expand one of the continuing buggerups in all the Civ-type games: the idea that a civilization remains constant or consistant over dozens of centuries. I would pay almost any amount for a civ game in which, for instance, my starting Civ of Britons was conquered by Celts, then by Romans, became Romano-British, was overrun by Germanic (Angle-Saxon) Barbarians, formed yet another civilization, then was conquered (again) by Frenchified Vikings (Normans) to become English - which then conquer the Welsh, Scots, and Irish to become a British United Kingdom. This Civ would start with a 'characteristic' of sophisticated mass labor organization (to build Stonehenge), pick up intensive city-building and improvements from the Romans, extensive individual legal rights from the Saxons, armored cavalry techniques from the Normans, massed longbows from the Welsh, and an extensive navy after fighting several naval wars with the Dutch and French - and as a geographical result of being stuck on a island.
Characteristics should come about because of historical and geographical situations, which will change and change the characteristics over time. Otherwise, they risk becoming ridiculous, such as a Viking civilization with long-range sailing special abilities which has all its cities landlocked in a desert.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
markusf
|
|
Like i said before change what the specialists do!!!.
For instance a german scientist my produce 4 beakers...
I also say add more specialists(worker and farmer)
worker produces 3 shields and a farmer 6 food.
Also there are a ton of specials in the game. If the germans have a industrial bonus coal output should be increased by 2 shields, or a wheat produces 5 food instead of 3 for some civs oil produces + 2 shields and silk produces 2 less trade then normal etc etc etc. Depending on what civ u are...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ribannah
|
 |
The Netherlands, Embassy of the Iroquois Confederacy
Aug 2000
time: 06:12
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lancer on 01-23-2001 06:31 PM
Sure, there were exceptions, don't get me wrong. That's what I meant by 'basicly', as in 'for the most part'. Btw, what happened to DeGrasse and his fleet? The French, the Spanish, the Dutch, and even the Danes, all got crushed by the English at sea, or in port)
|
In the relevant period, there were four wars between the English and the Dutch, of which 3 were won by the Dutch (including one in which the English had joined forces with the French and two German counties).
------------------
If you have no feet, don't walk on fire
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ribannah
|
|
The Netherlands, Embassy of the Iroquois Confederacy
Aug 2000
time: 06:12
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by St Leo on 01-24-2001 07:09 PM
Off the top of my head, the "English" are Saxons( +Angles +Jutes +Frisians +Whatever) who dispaced Celts (as in Welsh, Britons, Scots, Picts, and Irish) and were for brief periods of time ruled by Romans and Vikings (Danes, Norwegians, Normans).
|
The Celts weren't the first people in England either, and many people from Normandy (France, not Scandinavia) migrated to England after they beat the Saxons. So the "English" are a mix of four tribes, with some Viking and Roman influences on the side.
------------------
If you have no feet, don't walk on fire
|
|
| |
|
|
|
cyclotron7
|
 |
Drowning in Schnitzel
Jan 2001
time: 21:12
|
|
I don't mean to be on the offensive, but I find all this American-bashing disturbing 
Anyway... I think the problem with abilities is that... well... to use them correctly, we need to find the ROOT of each ability, not just the historical fact.
For example, take the British Empire. Some have suggested that since they were a large naval power, they should have faster/ more numerous ships. But this breaks down when the British are landlocked. So, we must identify the reasons for Britain's sea power.
1) Britain was a very expantionist country and a colonial power.
2) They are located entirely on a relatively small island.
So, by getting to the root of the ability, we find that each historically based ability is in turned based on a few reasons for the ability:
1) Attitude of the Civ, i.e. colonial or self-centered
2) Geographical conditions, i.e. being on a shore or desert
Some people might object to 1, because this in turn probably has numerous historical roots that would be difficult to analyze. That kind of stuff (origins of a superpower) is the stuff term papers are made of, not games.
Number two, however, seems like an intriguing idea. This would be a great way to implement unique civs, and it would be impossible to offend someone. I don't know the precise way of implementing this, but it seems to be the majority of this forum's (and my own) favorite option.
|
|
| |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
24-01-2001 18:48
.
|