View Full Version : Special Circumstance Civs


Drtad
Nov 19, 2006, 09:10 PM
I have an idea. How about civs that only spawn when certain conditions are met? For example: If Rome loses the city of Rome and is in control of Constantinople at the time of this loss, then the remainder of the Roman Empire, turns into the Byzantine Empire, with a new leader, capital at Constantinople, UU, UB, UV, and UP. The biggest problem I see here is the number of art files needed. Maybe the leaders could be 2D instead of 3D?

TheGreatOne
Nov 19, 2006, 09:45 PM
Great idea! Ive always wanted this implemented in this game.

Watiggi
Nov 19, 2006, 11:08 PM
Maybe a simplified version could be made at first that wouldn't need artwork: If a certain something occurs, then a civilization comes into existance. For instance, ... <nothing comes to mind :(>

But something that where if civ A is conquered, then make civ B come into existance earlier than they normally would.

Ahh, For instance: America comes into existance at the normal time OR when England, France, etc settlers America. If Rome is crushed, the Celts are born; if Persia is crused, Arabia is born, etc.

captain beaver
Nov 19, 2006, 11:28 PM
It would be a great idea, but could we first have a confirmation from a modder/coder if it is actually possible to recycle unused civ slots? There is no point in discussing something which is impossible otherwise.
Also, in most cases, revolution can simulate this effect (example : Persia falls and comes back as Sassanid/Khwarzim) although names/UU/UP/UHV are not changed.

Drtad
Nov 19, 2006, 11:43 PM
Jdog has recycled civ slots in his Revolution mod, I don't see how it wouldn't work code-wise. But truly I wouldn't know as I am not a code buff, all I can merely do is XML.

Watiggi
Nov 19, 2006, 11:44 PM
There is no point in discussing something which is impossible otherwise.Thaaatt's never stopped me before :mischief:

kairob
Nov 20, 2006, 05:22 AM
I have suggested something similar and think it is a very good idea (e.g. if rome does not exist in yeah X, italy spawns) is that the kind of thing you were thinking?

Zetetic Apparat
Nov 20, 2006, 07:15 AM
Doesn't the renaissance of Civs as it already exists do this? Maybe different names for respawns at different times would be nice though.

thenooblet22
Nov 20, 2006, 08:17 AM
I think it's too complicated. First off, Byzantium was a broken portion of the Roman Empire, so it wouldn't make sense for them just to suddenly spawn. Secondly, the Roman empire never reaches its true potential in any of my games. Finally, Greece usually doesn't collapse. If anyhing, if you could use your imaginations, Greece is the Byzantine Empire; since the Byzantines adopted the Hellenistic culture for their own. Also, I don't see any other examples of civilizations which this would work with. Aztecs if Mayans dissolve? Timurs if Abassid collapse? Too complicated if you ask me.

McA123
Nov 20, 2006, 11:40 AM
This discussion reminds me very much of RTW Barbarian Invasion. I liked the system but my only problem was that you couldn't play as the new emerging civs... So if this is put in, they should be playable...otherwise it'd just be a ton of work for a bit of flavour. And that's if this is even possible, which I have to doubt.

Tboy
Nov 20, 2006, 11:58 AM
I like the American idea. Spawns in 1733AD, or when at least 5 european cities are founded in North America. Of course, this would mean that the Americans might have to be toned down... hmm... *starts thinking hard*

Phallus
Nov 20, 2006, 12:08 PM
To be honest I prefer the standard 1733 spawning because the '5 city' requirement simply isn't accurate. I love the concept of dymanic civ founding though.

kairob
Nov 20, 2006, 12:16 PM
I like the concept of dynamic founding, but like Phallus I dont think it works well for america.

TheGreatOne
Nov 20, 2006, 03:53 PM
new civs could spawn off of civic changes like the American civil war.

Drtad
Nov 20, 2006, 10:38 PM
I merely stated that for some, not all situations, a new civ can spawn, but only if the requirments are met. Like the Byzantine example I gave above. And about imagination, I'd rather not, imagining gives me a headache. Besides, it could just be a rename and not a total new spawn anyway.

Watiggi
Nov 21, 2006, 12:11 AM
To be honest I prefer the standard 1733 spawning...How on earth did you guys go from whatever population you were in 1733 to 250+million population where Australia was settled in 1788 and has only 20+milllion. What? Did you guys just bonk like bunny rabits or something...? (We have immigration too).

Anyway, that one has allways stumped me for a very long time. Sorry... off topic.

Elhoim
Nov 21, 2006, 12:17 AM
Well, the US was the country were most inmigrants went.

Watiggi
Nov 21, 2006, 07:19 AM
most? To go from well, what ever the population was to start with to 250 million... well, how much of America is American? Immigration only goes so far, where did the rest come from?

kairob
Nov 21, 2006, 07:53 AM
They are all immagrants with the exception of native america.

Morholt
Nov 21, 2006, 09:26 AM
It isn't strange that people prefer to go to a lush fertile land across the Atlantic rather than a big desert with some coastline on the other side of the globe. It is no coincidence that Australia used to be a penal colony, y'know.

GoodGame
Nov 21, 2006, 11:44 AM
That's a cool idea, though actually the empire was split up administratively before the western half fell. Generally, it'd be cool if you build any secondary 'palaces' other than Versailles that there is a chance they will turn into a new empire under the right circumstances.

I have an idea. How about civs that only spawn when certain conditions are met? For example: If Rome loses the city of Rome and is in control of Constantinople at the time of this loss, then the remainder of the Roman Empire, turns into the Byzantine Empire, with a new leader, capital at Constantinople, UU, UB, UV, and UP. The biggest problem I see here is the number of art files needed. Maybe the leaders could be 2D instead of 3D?

Blasphemous
Nov 21, 2006, 01:17 PM
Ooh, ooh, this gives me an awesome idea: any civ that loses its capital collapses immediately, unless it has a secondary palace. This boosts the value of the secondary palaces tremendously (Summer Palace NW and Forbidden Palace WW, last time I checked). It may also require another secondary palace (Winter Palace? Administrative Complex?) with no benefit beyond saving you empire, to give civs a chance earlier on and with less effort.
Then we can add a little popup whenever you conquer a city with a Palace or a secondary palace, offering you to relocate one of your own palaces to there (otherwise the palace is destroyed, and this will be free or very cheap, rather than highly expensive.)
Then the whole palace-relocation thing could be a very strong trigger for independence movements. The chances could be even higher whenever a palace is relocated away from the lands of the conquered civ, making them take over and reinstate the palace their oppressor had in their lands.

SadoMacho
Nov 21, 2006, 01:59 PM
Summer palace, forbidden palace, winter palace, administrative complex,...
A federal parlement, regional parlement, State Gouvernour Palace,....
Sound a bit like Belguim, it has 6 governements for 10.000.000 people.

Like the idea, though, Blasphemous.

Phallus
Nov 21, 2006, 02:33 PM
new civs could spawn off of civic changes like the American civil war.

How is the American civil war at all relevent to your suggested scenario? No new civs spawned and here's what Ulysses S. Grant had to say about civic changes:

"If I thought this war was to abolish slavery, I would resign my commission and offer my sword to the other side."

How on earth did you guys go from whatever population you were in 1733 to 250+million population where Australia was settled in 1788 and has only 20+milllion. What? Did you guys just bonk like bunny rabits or something...? (We have immigration too).


A more pressing question would be "Why am I suddenly American?"

kairob
Nov 21, 2006, 02:39 PM
can I ask americans only if they know what the english civil war was about?

SadoMacho
Nov 21, 2006, 03:34 PM
Belgium became independent from the netherlands in 1830 because the frence speaking industrialists wanted Liberalism, and not the enlightend despotism of the dutch speaking king Willem, and because the dutch speaking Flemish were catolics and the Dutch king was Protestant.

So religion, civics (and language) did cause revolutions in real live, so why not in the games that tries to simulate reality.

The US civil war was also the difference between the industrializing North with a lot of immigrants and the agrarian South, two different culture growing apart. A concervative and a progressive part, still different now.

Phallus
Nov 22, 2006, 07:52 AM
So religion, civics (and language) did cause revolutions in real live, so why not in the games that tries to simulate reality.

They still do. Who was arguing against this?

The US civil war was also the difference between the industrializing North with a lot of immigrants and the agrarian South, two different culture growing apart. A concervative and a progressive part, still different now.

Two slightly different cultures. Not two civilizations.

kairob
Nov 22, 2006, 08:33 AM
I dont think he is saying anyone was arguing rather that it should be incorparated, correct me if I am wrong though...

SadoMacho
Nov 22, 2006, 10:38 AM
no correction is neeeded, kairob!

kairob
Nov 22, 2006, 10:56 AM
yay, thats a first ;)

Drtad
Nov 22, 2006, 11:06 AM
I like Blasphemous' new idea, and it doesn't seem too hard to implement.

Tboy
Nov 22, 2006, 11:54 AM
can I ask americans only if they know what the english civil war was about?
I know I'm English, but I can't help answering this one :)

The reason it started was because the English king, Charles II, was abusing his power a lot, had a Catholic wife (the English hated Catholics at the time) and was not consulting parliament (basically, our senate+congress) about government.

Then he started trying to arrest politicians, they snapped, and they and several other areas of England declared war on the king.

That's todays history lesson, class.

lumpthing
Nov 22, 2006, 11:58 AM
In other words, England switched from Hereditary Rule to Representation and suffered a few turns of anarchy as a result ;)

kairob
Nov 22, 2006, 12:25 PM
I was just wondering if people know as much about that as the american one ;)

Phallus
Nov 22, 2006, 12:27 PM
English king, Charles II,

Charles I? :p

kairob
Nov 22, 2006, 12:32 PM
@Phallus. Once again I find my self telling myself that the freudian slip is right... ;)