RFC: a few thoughts on certain civs and starting positions

Meant to thank you too, Lance, for your comments. It's hard anywhere
when you're only told what "They" want you to know. Who was it that
said in effect, that for evil to triumph it is only necessary for good people
not speak out? And as I once read on the tombstone of Karl Marx in Highgate Cemetary, North London, "Philosophers have long speculated on the nature
of the world, Our task, however, is to change it".
 
My aplogies in advance; failure to recognize the global cultural significance - as well as popularity - of the Simpsons leaves me speechless.

So, with my parting breath before I become speechless (and if this upsets the folks on the forum or the moderators, again my apologies): jessiecat, it is my humble opinion that you're lost (lol).
 
With that said, can we please get back to the point of the thread - RFC: a few thoughts on certain civs and starting positions.
 
I object to the ottomans being defined as Turks since being a Turk was not an essential part of being an Ottoman.
 
I also want to know why you can keep losing contact with civs, only for them to reappear a few turns later.
 
Thanks for the explanation Rhye. I noticed the permanent embassies after posting.

Something else, I'm playing as the Vikings and believe I've completed the three UHVs, but I'm not getting the victory declared. I had 5k gold in 1500 and built the first city in America, getting me to 2/3. However, I've since sunk well over 25 ships and I'm not getting 3/3 and victory. Maybe it's the kind of ships I've sunk? Stats tell me I've sunk 12 Galleons, 10 Caravels, 9 Triremes and 4 Galleys. What's up?
 
The victory screen just says "not yet" for the sunken ship victory condition. But I know that I've sunk more than the 25 required, as listed above.
 
I'll try to remember to send it when I get home. Thanks for your attention btw and indeed for the supremely excellent mod :goodjob:
 
Here is the save file.
 

Attachments

  • Ragnar AD-1733 Turn 302.CivBeyondSwordSave
    673.6 KB · Views: 185
I agree with Ghandi Khan about American cultural hegemony. Its dominance is overwhelming. I'm currently studying in a very international setting and although there are no Americans on my course, familiarity with American culture is one of the things we can all bond over.

American music, American films, American tv, American politics (at that includes the strong Michael Moore style anti-American-hegemony politics), American-English, American cultural movements, American computer games! These are all things that anyone in the world who has everyday access to international media is very familiar with. What other nation comes close to matching that cultural influence? People who can't see the reality of American cultural hegemony, even while they laugh at the Simpsons, anticipate the next international blockbuster, download Eminem, laugh at Britney Spears, visit dozens of .com websites every week, practice English as a second language, discuss American politics and play Civilization are in a phenomenal state of denial.
 
I agree with Ghandi Khan about American cultural hegemony. Its dominance is overwhelming. I'm currently studying in a very international setting and although there are no Americans on my course, familiarity with American culture is one of the things we can all bond over.

American music, American films, American tv, American politics (at that includes the strong Michael Moore style anti-American-hegemony politics), American-English, American cultural movements, American computer games! These are all things that anyone in the world who has everyday access to international media is very familiar with. What other nation comes close to matching that cultural influence? People who can't see the reality of American cultural hegemony, even while they laugh at the Simpsons, anticipate the next international blockbuster, download Eminem, laugh at Britney Spears, visit dozens of .com websites every week, practice English as a second language, discuss American politics and play Civilization are in a phenomenal state of denial.


It's not about not recognizing American cultural hegemony. That's well
understood. And we are all more or less influenced and transformed by it.
But it's regretting, lamenting and ultimately rejecting SOME aspects of it
which is far more relevant to me. As it should be, IMHO.:)
BTW I can't stand the Simpsons, and I grew up in N.America. Go figure.;)
 
Ok, before I start on what I wanted to ask... here's something to satisfy perhaps all camps.

American cities are not the most cultured in the world at the moment. However they are producing massive amounts of culture.

---

On topic now!

Part 3 of the original post is a big one for me, in Civ4 generally.

I struggle to get buildings built. I do not run some cities generating commerce, and some not. I can't make the game work like that, it's not like previous Civs. Sure you can get a financial, and a research capital. Sure you'll have GP farms, settler farms, wonder farms, production cities etc. But generally speaking every single city has to do their bit with the economy.

That means I build every research and commercial building in every city.

Now I do realise that this isn't the only way to do it. But certainly for a traditional game where you generate your own research, and fund your own economy you need to do it.

Because when you capture a city - by it flipping to you, by conquest, by whatever almost every building is gone... it makes conquest almost useless.

Sure I could annex Ethiopia, but why bother? They aren't a military threat to me. Sure I could use those sheep, but I'd be hammering my own economy, massively hurting stability and the benefit would be a vast decrease in commerce, and sheep. Or I could vassal them, and get those resources for free... but then other civs would be annoyed at me for declaring on them in the first place, and then for me having a vassal.

So there's really no benefit in me conquering people, other than when it's a vital strategic resource, or way early in the game where the city will actually have time to rebuild all those buildings.

I'm no modder, but it's clear that somewhere in Civ4 the game has a list of which buildings survive, and which ones don't survive capture. I know that libraries get whacked. Why on earth would they, it makes little sense. Other than a gameplay thing in order to make conquest less attractive.

Some things I can understand. Barracks for example. And there's also the arguement that conquest isn't really profitable in the modern age. Iraq, for example, has been pretty much destroyed. Sure they oil is still there, but the rebuilding is going on now and costs a fortune, and will take a long time.

But then again, we already have that mechanism in Civ4. Cities go into resistance when you capture them, producing nothing for a considerable period of time.

The simplest solution is to go through the list of what is destroyed and what isn't, and apply a bit of logic.

The complex solution is to make a captured city cost money to bring back to what it was, or production. Have all the buildings disabled, and a 4th option along side wealth, research, culture be "Rebuilding" and the points from that go to bringing buildings back on line. Allow the option to remove buildings from the city screen that are disabled, no cash payout for it, but it would reduce the total amount required to rebuild the city.

The other point I wanted to raise about RFC is regarding the older civs.

Sometimes I want to play a game as a particular nation, and make it to the end of time. I'll want to start as Egypt, and finish up the 1 power in the world, send a spaceship to Alpha Centauri etc. However the very early civs have huge disadvantages in comparison to the ones that spawn next to them.

If I want to play a game as Egypt, and I'd like not just the Nile, but some nice resources then NW Africa is a nice spot... And the easiest way to do that? Start as Carthage, and immediately, and without any difficulty, annex all of Egypt.

If I want to play as India... then start as Persia and immediately and without any difficulty annex India.

Same for Greece (but to a lesser degree) start as Rome, and annex them with ease.

I realise it's a bit of a balance nightmare. The early civs are supposed to do their bit, build their wonders, and then collapse. However, they do seem destined to do that, and it's a real handicap playing as them rather than other civs.

Starting as Egypt you essentially have until Carthage appears to have bronze working, spearmen, axemen, and 3 cities, and all the research they have got to be on a par with them. That's no mean feat.

However I do understand that if, for example, Egypt was beefed up, then it'd be a monster and last the whole game. I also realise that if I start a 3000BC start and pick Maya (to stay totally out of it) then Egypt, and India will survive because nobody will use the initial jump start advantage they have over them. Neither will flourish though. China will do ok, and then fall apart when Mongols take their capital.

So a solution for that? I don't have an easy one. All I could suggest is a couple of settlers, a couple of workers, a couple of decent defenders, and a couple more techs at the start.. then of course the wonder costs would have to be upped significantly to compensate.

Edit : And another niggle I have... is with older civs, and civs spawning from them.

If the Roman Empire had been... different. If it had been different enough to be successful, and still standing in the middle ages...

So let's assume Rome says... we're only taking westward from Greece/Poland. Or maybe even just Germany and west. And they had been more stable, and had not been overrun by barbarians... France, Spain, etc wouldn't form. Or they wouldn't appear like they do in RHC.

Certainly I'd like the opportunity to play as Rome and make it to the end. Without France, England, Spain, Netherlands, Portugal, Germany etc popping up and grabbing my cities. Perhaps if I didn't run a stable Empire then they'd appear, or I'd have to do what the British Empire had to do and let bits go in order to hold on to the rest (yes I do know it failed).

So what I'm suggesting is some kind of stability check, or some kind of check which will prevent, or may prevent civs spawning from others. Or perhaps just have France not flip cities, but just a huge stack of barbarians appear in France, and if they get any cities, then that section of the maps barbs would flip and become France... if they failed? Then there would be no France.
 
I think you have to consider what culture represents in the Civilization game. In the game, the things which ultimately produce the most culture points--by far--are the early wonders. Now, in real life, it's probably true that nobody is going to convert to Egyptian culture because they're impressed by the Pyramids, or Greek culture because of The Oracle, but those count hugely in the game. So in the game context, culture doesn't represent ephemeral culture (where the U.S. is obviously hugely dominant today), but those achievements that have stood the test of time.

And so, New York may qualify as a legendary city (it has outstanding museums, a couple of iconic international buildings, etc.) but L.A.? Not so much--it's pretty much known for Hollywood and not much else. From the way culture is gained in the game, I'm not sure it would outrank San Francisco, New Orleans or Boston, let alone Paris or Rome.

You can argue that the way culture works in the game is totally unrealistic--which is true, of course. On the other hand, you could argue that even having the U.S. as a distinct civilization is a bit dubious anyway, as so much of its culture is derived from earlier civilizations.
 
Why does India start in Dehli when the first Indian Civilization started on the Indus River in Pakistan?

and

Why does China's capital start in Beijing when it orginally started on the Yellow River with the Shang Dynasty (capital was Anyang)?

Also

Why do the Babylonians start in Babili when they actually (Sumerian's) started right at the mouth of the Persian Gulf, with cities like Ur which never appear in games.

Even with the Greeks, their first Civilization started with the city of Mycenae not Athens which came later.

Their are still a lot of errors like this through out the game, but these if anything are the big ones.
 
then you have to apply this concept to all the civs: you'll end up with a Spanish capital in the Asturia, with a German capital right next to Netherlands, with a Russian capital in Kiev or Novgorod, and the Aztec capital somewhere north in Aztlan. And many more. Is this what you would like?
 
I see your point, but for civ's that start in 3000 BC, they should at least try to be put next to their orginial area , and then if you play 600AD they would all be in more modern areas. All i'm trying do say is that a more historacly accurate RFC would be nice, but I see what you mean. ;)

Btw have Russia's capital at Novogord woulden't be that bad
 
Top Bottom