Patine
Deity
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2011
- Messages
- 11,108
No, I am not. My point is solid, and quite poignant. And, again, it's not really a joke.You're being pedantic my man, live a little
No, I am not. My point is solid, and quite poignant. And, again, it's not really a joke.You're being pedantic my man, live a little
Well if you said the Kazakhs, sure. But Kazakhstan I associate more with the modern-day country that was shaped by the Russians/Soviets.Eurasian Steppe Nomads.
Not specifically. If I'd had to choose a specific civ for that playstyle it could be the unique ability for the Sarmatians though.You also didn't actually say the playstyle was planned to chage in that era, eithrer, in your view. Do you have a vision how that would be addressed?
didn't see this.Oh right not even the capital? So how do you lose?
I haven't played it, but Shafer, the lead dev behind civ 5 released a self-published 4x game called 'At the Gates' that is pretty much this. reviews mostly report that it's fun enough mechanically, but it's hamstrung by bad AI and borderline unplayable as a result.Make a whole new game called Civilisation: Barbarians
Where the entire game is you doing as much damage as possible
And your choices for Civs are all different Barbs
Then you get to be a Terrorist in the modern era
"Land of the Kazakhs." It was used before the Tsarist Russian conquest of Turkestan. The Soviets prefered, "Kazakh Soviet Socialist Republic," for some reason. Nursultan Nazarbeyev reverted the name back in 1991, not any Russian. Like the, "Zululand," name in most historical records of Shaka and Cetanbayo's kingdom is exactly the same in Zulu as, "KwaZulu," in the modern South American Province of KwaZulu-Natal, and the preceding, "Bantustan," of KwaZulu.Well if you said the Kazakhs, sure. But Kazakhstan I associate more with the modern-day country that was shaped by the Russians/Soviets.
My question remains on how you would envision things working at the dawn of Industral Age, though?Not specifically. If I'd had to choose a specific civ for that playstyle it could be the unique ability for the Sarmatians though.
I watched a playthrough by Shafer. It looked amazing, but sadly it seems that Shafer has abandoned the game, so it's rife with issues that are never going to get solvedI haven't played it, but Shafer, the lead dev behind civ 5 released a self-published 4x game called 'At the Gates' that is pretty much this. reviews mostly report that it's fun enough mechanically, but it's hamstrung by bad AI and borderline unplayable as a result.
Was the name 'Kazakhstan' used? There was a Kazakh khanate, true, but I don't know that there was any significant degree of Kazakh nationalism pre-USSR. As far as I can recall, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan are modern post-USSR names"Land of the Kazakhs." It was used before the Tsarist Russian conquest of Turkestan. The Soviets prefered, "Kazakh Soviet Socialist Republic," for some reason. Nursultan Nazarbeyev reverted the name back in 1991, not any Russian. Like the, "Zululand," name in most historical records of Shaka and Cetanbayo's kingdom is exactly the same in Zulu as, "KwaZulu," in the modern South American Province of KwaZulu-Natal, and the preceding, "Bantustan," of KwaZulu.
I'm pretty sure the Turco-Persiam suffix -stan was very prevelant in the region. It may have just been a pragmatic geographic reference for polities, though, rather than an indicator of Nationalism, back then, like the Anglo-Germanic -land or the Greco-Roman -a or -ia was in older days.Was the name 'Kazakhstan' used? There was a Kazakh khanate, true, but I don't know that there was any significant degree of Kazakh nationalism pre-USSR. As far as I can recall, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan are modern post-USSR names
That it was, but the modern -stan states are modern concepts. I don't know for sure, but I don't believe these terms were commonly used pre-USSRI'm pretty sure the Turco-Persiam suffix -stan was very prevelant in the region. It may have just been a pragmatic geographic reference for polities, though, rather than an indicator of Nationalism, back then, like the Anglo-Germanic -land or the Greco-Roman -a or -ia was in older days.
People of the Steppe: May continue to build encampments after reaching the Ancient Era and settling your first city. +2 Science, Culture, Gold, Faith, and Production for every turn that you do not convert one of your encampments to your capital city. Cannot build settlers and found more cities.My question remains on how you would envision things working at the dawn of Industral Age, though?
They're not Soviet term, either. The Soviets, officially, used <insert titular etniicity> Soviet Socialist Republic.That it was, but the modern -stan states are modern concepts. I don't know for sure, but I don't believe these terms were commonly used pre-USSR
The inability to build settlers is part of those arbitrary, artificial limits that make no sense, as I see it. And, iis as historically inaccurate to the Eurasian Steppes Nomads as it is to the Venetian Republic.People of the Steppe: May continue to build encampments after reaching the Ancient Era and settling your first city. +2 Science, Culture, Gold, Faith, and Production for every turn that you do not convert one of your encampments to your capital city. Cannot build settlers and found more cities.
Note that encampment is a term that might be used to describe earlier moveable settlements in a "Neolithic" Era. They are still able to produce units and have yields around it.
The idea behind this is you can stay as nomadic as long as you want. Though in order to have more cities you would have to go out and conquer them with units.
Specific Kazakh identity doesn't seem to predate the Kazakh Khanate that was formed around 1465 CE after the Mongol Golden Horde fell apart, and Kazakh language and culture don't seem to have been solidly differentiated from other Turkic groups in the area until the following century. The Khanate seems to have been almost entirely a tribal organization and was completely subjugated by the Russian Empire between 1813 and 1907 - and by the latter date a large number of Russians had been moved into Kazakh territory to increase Russian influence in the area.Was the name 'Kazakhstan' used? There was a Kazakh khanate, true, but I don't know that there was any significant degree of Kazakh nationalism pre-USSR. As far as I can recall, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan are modern post-USSR names
This is why I proposed 'Pastoral Settlers' that cost much less to build, but it takes 2 to form a City while only 1 can build a Settlement to expand territory. That allows the pastoral group to expand fairly rapidly and later convert to city-building when pastoralism becomes less efficient compared to Industrialization.The inability to build settlers is part of those arbitrary, artificial limits that make no sense, as I see it. And, iis as historically inaccurate to the Eurasian Steppes Nomads as it is to the Venetian Republic.
Which is why if they ever got into civ I think they would just use the name Khazaks. I'm pretty sure I've seen Humankind use that name too as a minor nation, but I'm not sure?That it was, but the modern -stan states are modern concepts. I don't know for sure, but I don't believe these terms were commonly used pre-USSR
I'm fine with the idea of changing that to settlers can still found encampments that can eventually grow into cities.The inability to build settlers is part of those arbitrary, artificial limits that make no sense, as I see it. And, iis as historically inaccurate to the Eurasian Steppes Nomads as it is to the Venetian Republic.
Well, it may not be typical in-game parlance, but, "the practice of using the country name rather than the people/culture name is largely just obstinate fannish misspeaking," is a bit, egregiously, unnecessarily harsh, and not actually true. I admit, I have descended into such inexplicable, out-of-the-blue, unpleasant phrasing here, myself, but I have also noticed it doesn't leading to good fellowship.Mostly, they should use the name Kazakh because that's been the norm for naming Civs from Civ I onward: French, English, German civilizations. Not France, England, Germany,
The practice of using the country name rather than the people/culture name is largely just obstinate fannish misspeaking.
Yes, they should use the name "the Kazakh". Kazakhstan is the modern nation-state that doesn't fully correspond with the Kazakh KhanateWhich is why if they ever got into civ I think they would just use the name Khazaks. I'm pretty sure I've seen Humankind use that name too as a minor nation, but I'm not sure?
But was a derisive call-out for such a minor point not everyone shares really needed? This is something I, myself, have not always stopped to think about before making some of my infamous, egregious, angry rantsObstinate fannish slang, then (because really, thirty years of replacing actual game terminology with our own really is obstinate)
For the rest, not a commentary on any individual, just a genersl observation. It's a fan terminology thing, we all do it becsuse we're all part of that fan culture, myself included, but it's rather silly when we get so caught up in our fan speak that we forget thirty-some years of actual game terminology to debate whether a country name would be the appropriate name for a civ.