Does anyone else fee that there needs to be more diversity between civilizations? Unique Buildings were a step up but I think more can be done.

Civ-Specific Great People.

:D

Civ-Specific Great People.

:D

I'd actually love that. I'm tired of Chinese Great People being born in Mali.

There's a mod for that... ;)

...And it seriously needs to be updated.... ;)

I think civ-specific great people (and civ-specific national wonder names, etc.) are more about flavour. The example mentioned in the OP is unique buildings which introduced a new game play feature to CivIV rather than simply making it all look more palatable.

But I disagree with the OP. I think that unique buildings border on going too far - mainly because most buildings (unlike most units) never become obsolete.

What other unique aspects can be introduced? There isn't enough variation in tile improvements, civics, or great people types to introduce a unique one for each civ. Similarly for multiple unique units and buildings; are there enough units and buildings in the game for every civ to have two unique units and two unique buildings. The concept of unique wonders or unique traits kind of misses the point of including traits and wonders in the first place.

A game called age of mythology did a very good job of diversity. i'd like stronger diversity in civ 4 as well.

Different graphics for different civs go a long way toward this. Isn't that what the OP was talking about--flavor?

Unique buildings aren't just flavour. They're a whole new game dynamic. Different graphics are (as far as I can see) only flavour.

If a market has a unique graphic you are no more inclined to build it than if it didn't. But you might be if the market gave you a +25% great people points bonus.

This feature looks like it's aimed squarely at EDU based mods. While the flavor stuff was neat, it was murder on the Civilopedia -- made it too difficult to navigate units.

Thedrin:
But a unique market graphic for each civ would differentiate between the two. I agree with you on the other stuff, however I would like to see more graphics even if they are just fluff.

There was a game (I forget the name; there are probably many like this) that dealt with civilization in the ancient era, and it did this very well. Each tribe had its own graphics set, so the Egyptians' temples looked dramatically different from the Greek ones. While this is purely for cosmetic purposes (and hence gets a very low priority in the epic game) it gives you a much better feel for the different civs. To me, that's important--not just the different UUs and UBs, but the total feel of playing as a civ. They've come a long way with in-game languages, unique units, etc., but more is needed. Maybe the interface itself should change based on your culture group.

Different colours is enough for me. I can get that people would want a greater level of detail but as long as I have the option to switch it off it doesn't bother me.

On the other hand (the 'it might bother me' hand) how much resources would it take to design 34 different graphics for jails and pikemen?

Well, obviously you wouldn't want to take it that far... You could just break it down by culture group. That's why I say this is a job for modders, not the programmers, and I'm glad they've given us that option now without having to add separate XML.

I missed the reference to culture groups.

Different colours is enough for me

So what? England's market only sails red Applies while Rome's Market on sell green apples? :)

Ah, I remember back to civ 2, where the only difference between civs was the leader name and city list.
Did you catch this from the chat friday?
Is there more flavour between civs, for example, different artwork for same units, etc...?
<FXS_JonShafer> there is new art
<FXS_JonShafer> which was produced by some of the modders helping with BTS
<FXS_JonShafer> so the same unit will look different for different civs
<FXS_JonShafer> something that's cool
<alexman> There is some different artwork for the same units, thanks to our fans
<FXS_JonShafer> it's not for all civs or all units, but there is a noticeable difference
<Solver> The new graphics add a lot of flavour to the game there

I'm guessing this is a reference to Rabbit, White's "Ethnically Diverse Units" mod.

I pretty much play the Total Realism mod all the time which gives very strong flavours with many unique units and civ specific great people so Will Shakespeare can never be born in Seoul. I'm going to have to play unmodded BTS for a few weeks until the TR Team get their first release out though.

I never pay attention to the names of Great People. Their names are not important because I am too focused on actually using them to care to notice what they are called.

You do realize, NYHunter, that saying that around me is like saying "I never pay attention to religious people" to the Pope?

:D

A game called age of mythology did a very good job of diversity. i'd like stronger diversity in civ 4 as well.
But AoM only had four civs, not the 30+ that Civ has. Diversity was easier for them. I mean, look at the other games in the AoE series- they had more civs- AoE2 in particular- and so less diversity.
I think diversity is good in terms of flavour (naimg, graphics, etc.), but in terms of gameplay it needs to have limits. It's fine for an historical game like Total War to have near-totally different unit lists for each nation, but the way that Civ works means that it needs to retain a certain level of consistency across civs.

You do realize, NYHunter, that saying that around me is like saying "I never pay attention to religious people" to the Pope?

:D

Lol Catholics.
Also, AoM was boring. I don't notice cultural diversity. I'm too communistic-influenced.

I consider myself to be on the side of the historical and I don't think much of the supporters of the cartoony path. However, one thing that never bothered me was having Shakespeare born in Seoul. What's the big deal?


You do realize, NYHunter, that saying that around me is like saying "I never pay attention to religious people" to the Pope?
:D

Maybe because if Shakespeare was a Korean born in Korea, he'd have a Korean name? Like Jeong Cheol?

In the Total Realsim Mod when you play as Korea is everything absolutely Korean? Are all the buildings, resources named according to their Korean names. Are you only allowed to build Korean wonders (are there even any?)?

If yes, then fine. If no, then not only does having Shakespeare born in Seoul not actually bother you but Total Realism isn't very total in it's realism now is it?

I don't particularly care about the Total Realism mod itself, as that's not the relevant issue here. But as for the Korean wonders, yes they still have English names, but only because I have not yet completed my Civ-Specific Wonders mod. :D

Gaius Octavius,

Is it your mod used in TR ?

I can only imagine how long it takes to find an Aztec version of everything. :eek: ;)

Anyway, as I said I don't really care about the names I have no problem with the names being historically accurate. So go historical accuracy!

Ha ha... well, yes, but there's a funny story behind it.

I started working on the original mod back in July 2006 (my first mod), but didn't release it until December 31. By then Total Realism had its own version out... but after I compared the names I'd posted previously with the names they had, I noticed a striking similarity. :D So yes, they made their own version, but using my names. I was actually quite happy I'd contributed, if only in a small way.

The difference between Total Realism and my mod is that they don't have leaders for every civ's great people. Some civs have as few as three names per person type, and some types are empty. At least that's how it was when last I checked. I tried to make mine exhaustive (and got exhausted in the process of doing it!)

I am sure it is a difficult line for the programmers and game designers to walk.
On the one hand you want to keep as many "styles" of development possibilities for each civilization open. For instance the game would be VERY boring if the game that you played was TOO heavily influenced by the actual history of your leader / civ. Half the fun of civilization is watching a world develop where the Aztecs are technologically dominant over the Spanish or Ghandi has nukes and what not. I believe the epic game would be boring if the nature of a particular civ and leader were too heavily predetermined (though it is worth pointing out that I absolutely LOVE Rhye's work for the "forced" historical accuracy).
On the other hand (and economists always have two hands) the distinctions between the civilizations and leaders start to break down without a certain level of individual strengths. I remember that before the introduction of UBs, a lot of the different leaders kind of blended together because after their UU expired they were solely differentiated by their leader's traits. Much of the way I play CivIV is by accentuating the comparative advantages I have. A lack of diversity between civilizations would downplay the many varied and exciting "styles" of play.
Personally, if the diversity is wholly cosmetic, I say pile it on. W. Rabbit's EDU mod is an excellent example of such. I remember playing my first game as Mali (my favorite civ) with EDU and being blown away by home much more cohesive and compelling of a narrative I could draw in my peoples' history. I have similar thoughts for further differentiating the city types or national wonders.*
In situations where the diversity is gameplay altering... . .. .. .. . I still say pile it on. I think the game would heavily benefit from further differentiation of the civilizations, especially because there are so many now. I think Rhye's unique civ powers (e.g. The "Russian" Winter or the "American" Immigration) were a brilliant and compelling game-play mechanism. You didn't HAVE to use them but I'll be damned if they weren't situationally useful. I would like to see more UBs and certain technologies "earmarked" for each civilization. I don't know that more UUs would be great because many civilizations (like the Aztecs, Incas or soon to be Babylonians and Sumerians) would lack suitable secondary UU options.
I really don't envy the position of the game designers. Such a delicate balance. Spinning plates and whatnot.

* Arguments like this do beg interesting questions as to how far any group's identity is intrinsically motivated as opposed to materially motivated. Conflating cause and effect in discussions like this is very easy to do though, personally, I would lean to the material shaping of cultural identity. However, as an American it is hard to utter the words "historical materialism" without being shunned by ones co-workers and acquiantences. For the sake of CivIV though, I would say accentuate the oh-so-comfortable ethnic stereotypes I have been programmed to love.

I'm in favor of more graphical diversity in civ. However, when France and Japan spawn on one on continent with China and Germany on another, it isn't 'realistic' for France and Germany to have the same ethnic designs which are different from Japan and China.

So unless they have a separate design for every civ (and I doubt they do) I'd like 3 options for graphical diversity:

1)'historically accurate' European civs get 'European' designs, China and Japan get 'East Asian' designs, etc. Won't be realistic with random settings, but this option should be there.
2)'In game accurate'..the computer analyzes the start positions of every civ and groups them into geographical regions. Each region get randomly assigned an ethnic design.
3)Random...every civ is randomly assigned ethnic designs.

I'd be in favor of bringing back the optional "Culturally-linked start locations."

A game called age of mythology did a very good job of diversity. i'd like stronger diversity in civ 4 as well.

AGE OF MYTHOLOGY? Seriously? Age of Mythology?

You are actually comparing an RTS with a grand total of only FOUR playable "civs" (and this is with the expansion) to a TBS with a grand total of THIRTY FOUR playable civs (and this is with the expansions).

Honestly?!

Hey, you know what other game had great diversity? Starcraft! Hey, you know how many playable "civs" Starcraft had? THREE!! That is more than TEN TIMES LESS than what Civ IV can offer.

Yeah, it's pretty easy to be diverse and balanced when you only have a small number to worry about.

You honestly and seriously think that they can devote that much manpower to so many civs? Considering no other game has ever been so ambitious because of the OBVIOUS limitations? That is not how the game industry works.

Don't compare RTS to TBS, ever. It's not smart. Both Civ IV and AoM are great games, but they CANNOT be compared.

I'd be in favor of bringing back the optional "Culturally-linked start locations."


Yeah I always liked that option... added a bit of historical flavour to the game

AGE OF MYTHOLOGY? Seriously? Age of Mythology?

You are actually comparing an RTS with a grand total of only FOUR playable "civs" (and this is with the expansion) to a TBS with a grand total of THIRTY FOUR playable civs (and this is with the expansions).

Honestly?!

Hey, you know what other game had great diversity? Starcraft! Hey, you know how many playable "civs" Starcraft had? THREE!! That is more than TEN TIMES LESS than what Civ IV can offer.

Yeah, it's pretty easy to be diverse and balanced when you only have a small number to worry about.

You honestly and seriously think that they can devote that much manpower to so many civs? Considering no other game has ever been so ambitious because of the OBVIOUS limitations? That is not how the game industry works.

Don't compare RTS to TBS, ever. It's not smart. Both Civ IV and AoM are great games, but they CANNOT be compared.

I never said that Civ 4 should be as diverse as AOM. Yes it is impossible to compare them in such a way but the graphics could be somewhat different.

Such as, Making all cities look the same in modern times but have different looks for each civ (or civ group) to correspond to that civs period. So a Classical Age Chinese village would look different from a Classical Age European city.

Sorry if that was confusing.