 |
| |
|
|
siredgar
|
 |
New York, NY
Nov 2001
time: 00:18
|
|
As there have been a slew of Civilization-like games coming out recently, I wanted to compare their Civ lists--
Civilization 3 (16 civs):
Americans
Aztecs
Babylonians
Chinese
Egyptians
English
French
Germans
Greeks
Indians
Japanese
Persians
Romans
Russians
Sioux
Zulu
Age of Empire 2 (w/ expansion pack, 18 civs):
Aztecs
Britons
Byzantines
Celts
Chinese
Franks
Goths
Huns
Japanese
Koreans
Mayans
Mongols
Persians
Saracens
Spanish
Teutons
Turks
Vikings
Rise of Nations (not released yet, 18 civs):
Aztecs
Bantu
British
Chinese
Egyptians
French
Germans
Greeks
Incas
Japanese
Koreans
Mayans
Mongols
Nubians
Romans
Russians
Spanish
Turks
Apparently, we've been ripped off by two civs. Therefore, any proposed expansion pack for Civ 3 should have two more civs than intended.
Comparing the lists, it appears that the Koreans, Mayans, Mongols, Spanish, and Turks are included in Age of Empires 2 (albeit w/ expansion pack) and Rise of Nations, but not in Civ 3. Furthermore, Empire Earth has a whopping 21 civs included in the original game.
This is outrageous! I demand two of these civs be sent to me immediately by priority mail!
 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Beren
|
 |
Holland
Mar 2002
time: 06:18
|
|
Yes, Mongols are Barbarians. At least they were. However, they created an empire that stood. Though they pillaged cities, they held lands. I am somehow reluctant to put the Mongols in, but they were so important. They were so big, that you simply cannot exclude them.
In the Middle-East, for instace (the Il-Kahnate), they held a large quantity of land for a large periode of time.
OK, I'll admit: the Vikings can be included, but the Huns is a step further along the road and I don't feel like including them, though I am happy with every extra civ.
Conclusion: Mongols were not really civilized and I feel reluctant to put them in, but they were such a big power, that it is worth reconsidering.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
siredgar
|
|
New York, NY
Nov 2001
time: 00:18
|
|
If we are taking space into consideration, then according to your personal list you'd have the Spanish, the Swedes, and the Dutch included in Western Europe ALONG with the English, the French, the Romans, and the Germans. Do you know how small Western Europe actually is or has your European mindset inflated your sense of proportion? It's about the size of Greater Manchuria, which by the way was conquered by the KOREANS (which you do not include in your list) for a long time.
And yet, only the Russians and the Greeks for Eastern Europe? If Europe is going to be that crowded, then I'd expect at least the Huns or the Poles to be included to represent that part of the world, too.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Locutus
|
|
ACS CTP1/2 Manager & Civ4 Co-Manager
|
 |
Hengelo, The Netherlands
Nov 1999
time: 06:18
|
|
Ribannah:  
quote:
Originally posted by siredgar
Locutus, can you play all of these civs at the same time? |
You can play with up to 32 civs at the same time in CtP2 (although I've never actually done that myself, my poor old P200 64MB can't handle that  ).
quote:
Also, are each of the civ's characteristics detailed? |
As far as civ-specific characteristics go, they're less detailed than Civ3, that's true. There are 9-10 city styles (i.e. Egyptian cities look a bit like Pyramids, Islamic cities like Mosques, Romans like temples, etc - I think Civ3 has 5 for 16 civs?), every civ has a male and female leader and 50 cities, and there are 7 main personality types for AIs (but I'm thinking about adding 1 or 2 more; and personalities change a bit in the game as well, depending on terrain and stuff).
Although there are 'Great Leaders', they (at present) don't have a unique name (let alone several per civ) like in Civ3 (I might add that in the future, but it's a LOT of work).
There are no CSAs, because I'm strongly opposed to the whole concept: IMHO it's a core idea of the whole civ-philosophy that all civs start out equal; most (but not all) people in the CtP2 forum seem to agree with me on this so we don't have CSAs in CtP2.
Unique units exist in modified form: instead of being tied to a single civ, they are tied to technology, terrain (civs with a lot of cities in the jungle get Elephants, civ with a lot of cities on the coast get Longship) and chance. I may add religion to that list once I have that concept worked out in more detail. So one game the Romans have Legions, a next they might have Elephants, but they *are* the only civ with that unit.
Religion is a new concept I'm introducing: at some point in the game people will have to choose a religion and this influences diplomacy, has some minor CSA-like bonuses, affects what units/buildings/wonders/etc can be built and has a bunch of other characteristics. Again, people can choose, so it's not tied into a civ like Civ3's CSAs or UUs (so the Arabs aren't necessarily always Muslims), but in the course of a game it *will* make your own civ more unique from the other civs in that same game.
Basically, Civ3's civs are more unique but CtP2 HotW will 'compensate' by having a lot of dynamic in-game features such as religion, elite units (the CtP2 version of UUs), wonders visible on the map, random events, etc. Which approach works best is a matter of personal taste, I suppose.
quote:
I played CTP1 and it kind of sucked. How is CTP2? |
Well, I personally think CtP1 and 2 and the best games ever Why did you not like CtP1? Did you dislike concepts like PW, stacked combat, unconventional warfare? If so, you'll probably won't like CtP2 either. If you were annoyed by lack of balance, bugs, etc, you could well like (modded) CtP2, but in that case even modded CtP1 (try downloading MedMod 4.13 sometime if you still have the CD and feel like giving the game another shot) could well appeal to you.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Locutus
|
|
ACS CTP1/2 Manager & Civ4 Co-Manager
|
|
Hengelo, The Netherlands
Nov 1999
time: 06:18
|
|
Well, I guess that when I'm done (which might still be a while, dunno, real-life is rather demanding for me these days) I could throw in a bunch of maps as well, earth and otherwise. CtP2 players generally aren't big map/scenarios players but including it might encourage them to start doing so more...
I could fill a book with everything I know about CtP2 but I wouldn't want to go too far off topic here. Repost the question in the CtP2 forums and you'll get a much more elaborate response from me and others... I'll keep it short and say that in modded CtP2 (very little people play unmodded CtP2 so I won't even bring it up), diplomacy gives you somewhat less options that Civ3 but the AI is IMHO extremely good, almost human in it's reactions often... and we're still working on making it even better. Trade is perhaps a bit simplistic when compared to Civ3, but I've been looking in ways to make that better too (we've been looking to make something similar (but better) than Civ3's strategic resources for quite some time now, but no satisfactory system has been found yet). Yep, future units still exist and unconventional warfare (laywyers and stuff) as well, but it has been toned down a little. And of course the most important rule of CtP2: if you don't like it, change it. Disabling the future age or all unconventional units can be done in a matter of minutes.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Spiffor
|
 |
CPA - Evil Clone brigade
Nov 2001
time: 06:18
|
|
Siredgar :
I think it's normal Europe gets more crowded by "civilisations" than other continents, since a "civilisation" in the game is a group of people with a specific culture, a sedentary way of life, and an emphasis on cities.
Not every places emphisize on cities for a long time : Siberian tribes are mostly nomads, prime Africans mostly lived in unexpanding villages, North americans before the colonization didn't have big cities either (north of the Aztecs).
About the specific cultures : in Europe, because of the rich land, the continent was heating with conquests, mass migrations etc. since the fall of the Roman empire, creating a mix of cultures, which get specific over time (i.e : Spanish civ has its own culture, directly rooting from its Roman and Arabic legacy, with a bit of Wisigoth). Other places where there were many Civs was the mediterranean in ancient times, but most of these Civs (Hittites for example) have left very few historical data.
I agree there should be more extra european (esp. Asian) civs in the list... But since the "civilisations" of the game come from a european perspective, it's quite normal Europe gets more filled with Civs than other continents
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
siredgar
|
|
New York, NY
Nov 2001
time: 00:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Spiffor
I think it's normal Europe gets more crowded by "civilisations" than other continents, since a "civilisation" in the game is a group of people with a specific culture, a sedentary way of life, and an emphasis on cities. |
It seems that you are suggesting that Europe has more distinct cultures and is more civilized than other parts of the world, like Asia. If so, I have to respectfully disagree.
There is a common perception among many Westerners that our societies are more different from each other than those in Asia. Indeed, some consider Asia as some sort of monolithic society centered around China. This is no more true than saying that Europe is just fragmentations of the Roman Empire. And yet, I can assure you that France and Italy have much more in common with each other than Korea and Japan. In fact, Asian societies are far more distinct and apart than European ones.
In terms of level of "civilized" life, I can argue that many societies in Europe would have been considered backward by some Asian standards for a long period of time. Of course, this is not the case today and the present matters most to many people.
The primary reason why there are more European civs in the game is because there are more powerful nations in Europe than other parts of the world today. Europe has dominated world affairs for the past half-milennium, eclipsing Asia. There is not a single piece of land that has not been affected by Europeans in some way. Another reason is that most of the game players are from Europe and parts of the world settled by Europeans.
These reasons make a powerful argument for including more European civs. Why do you think that the Netherlands, Sweden, and Portugal can conceivably have their own civs represented in the game, while Vietnam, Burma, and Malaysia could not?
Thus, in my opinion, it is not a matter of distinction and level of civilized life, but European power and player reach.
That is not to say that I do not think that there should be more European civs in the game. In fact, I would like to play more European civs for the exact same reasons I have described.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:18.
Apolyton Time is 00:18. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
13-04-2002 02:06
Compare that to my upcoming History of the World mod for CtP2:
|