1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

Brainstorm possible Civs'!

Discussion in 'Civ4 - General Discussions' started by Menzies, Aug 18, 2007.

  1. Archaelicos

    Archaelicos Warlord

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2007
    Messages:
    148
    Location:
    St. Louis, MO
    I didn't say we shouldn't have any Earth history. I said that confining the playable time of a given Civ to when it historically existed is injecting too much devotion to Earth's timeline to the point of negatively impacting playability. Some Wonders have been made up in various incarnations of Civ. Adam Smith never ran a trading company, and Leonardo's Workshop isn't exactly a well-preserved landmark in Europe. Many of the traditional "seven wonders" of antiquity were omitted from Civ I and Civ II. We don't have a Space Elevator yet, and we may never, nor do we have SDI/Star Wars, nor Space Ships.

    The game is a fantasy version of Earth, loosely based on her history. But you reach a point where confining the game mechanics too much in the interest of duplicating Earth history interferes with gameplay and fun. Given your parting shot about American ignorance, I can't help but suspect you harbor some general distaste for the USA and it annoys you see it listed next to the likes of Greece, Rome, Byzantium, and Carthage. Which is fine, you're welcome to your opinion. I'm not exactly a big fan of Stalinist Russia, for example. But I wouldn't try to confine its playability in the game because of that. Fun first! Realism second!
     
  2. quarq

    quarq Chieftain

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2007
    Messages:
    11
    I dont dislike US in any form, i think we are blessed to have a strong democratic voice... (thats another subject).
    Fun and realism goes hand in hand... together with fantasy, and i think CTP 1 have the best playability as for strategic purpose as well, but they lack in gameplay which is a great deal.

    But CIV 4 lacks in realism as well... there is a lots of mods out there i have noticed, that corrects that.

    My point, once again, it disturbs me to see Abraham Lincoln or George Washington ranting around with stone age warriors. That was the point, but i think im to focused on realism... i mean why not let them have camel riders and elephants as well, maybe throw in some samurais for them, all for the fun of it.
     
  3. Archaelicos

    Archaelicos Warlord

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2007
    Messages:
    148
    Location:
    St. Louis, MO
    Ok, but the average world leader lives for, in Civ terms, about 5-10 turns. Until the 18th century, anyway. You could only play Pericles for 1 turn, basically.

    I don't quite get your connection between realism and fun. That is, I don't see how the game would be MORE fun if you were forced off the leader you wanted to play. It seems to me that the technologies, leaders, civs, etc, are just there to provide some familiar flavor. The underlying game mechanics could exist independently of Earth history.

    If realism was fun we wouldn't play video games. We'd just go outside. That's as realistic as it gets.
     
  4. dannyshenanigan

    dannyshenanigan Emperor

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2007
    Messages:
    1,062
    Location:
    Chicago
  5. quarq

    quarq Chieftain

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2007
    Messages:
    11
    The realistic feeling is quite obvious, all the shooter games are based on realistic feeling... that is, its meaning that you should feel that you are there. Same goes for strategic games. I do agree on that the underlaying mechanics can work with any type of units.
    I dont agree that its just go outside and feel how it is to experience a war, a battle, or any aggressive behaviours. Our limited experience is based on facts, books and movies.
    But lets not continue this anymore, i respect your thoughts. I want a game based on the worlds history as close as it can get.
     
  6. Gooblah

    Gooblah Heh...

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2007
    Messages:
    4,282
    *Note, this is a long post, so parts are in spoilers*
    The 15 Major Civs as defined by modern historians are:
    Andian , Indian, African, Egyptian (nubia incl), Crete, Greco-Roman/Classical, Byzantine, Orthodox, Mesopotamian, Mesoamerican, Japanese, Chinese, Western, Islamic, and one other one I can't reme,ber at all. Civ4 with BTS incl has the following:

    Spoiler :

    Andian
    Incan
    Indian
    Indian
    Khmer
    African
    Mali
    Zulu
    Ethiopia
    Egyptian
    Egyptian
    Crete
    None
    Classical
    Roman
    Greek
    Carthage (ish, nowhere else to put it)
    Byzantine
    Byzantine
    Orthodox
    Russian
    Mesopotamian
    Babylon
    Sumer
    Persia
    MesoAmerican
    Aztec
    Maya
    Native American
    Japanese
    Japan
    Korea (more Japanese than Chinese, as far as I know)
    Chinese
    Chinese
    Mongolian (closest fit)
    Western
    American
    French
    German
    English
    Holy Roman Empire
    Dutch
    Portuguese
    Spanish
    Viking
    Celtic
    Islamic
    Arabian
    Ottoman


    Please feel free to tell me how to update this list. I think I have all the game's Civs. The last Major Civ i don't remember, but I will update this list later once I know.
     
  7. quarq

    quarq Chieftain

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2007
    Messages:
    11
    Hi Gooblah,

    I dont know what you are meaning with that list ? You devide civs with each topic i pressume...
    Byzantines were Orthodox, so i dont know why you have them separated with the orthodox russians (the orthodox byzantines fled from the ottomans (turks) and settled where now russia are today, so they brought their traditions with them, so they are more or less modern russians...

    . .. .. .. .... pardon me, i will leave this thread :)

    "he who defends all, defends nothing" - old pope
     
  8. Antilogic

    Antilogic --

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2006
    Messages:
    15,602
    First, on navies: reading about the evolution of navies from the wooden ships powered by sail to modern oil-powered and nuclear ships (still a relative minority) is fascinating. There were dozens of weird ship classes created, especially in the 1870's-1890's where they were still figuring out how to build metal ships with coal-powered steam engines...and then the evolution to oil-powered ships created an entirely new genre of ships. The name "ironclad" is an American term, granted, but several European navies had oddball ship classes like ironclads or weird mixed ships as well. I don't have access to my library at the minute, but take a look at Wikipedia to get started. Then find a real source. :rolleyes:

    However, I believe you are incorrect on the HRE. The Western Roman Empire collapsed in the most complete manner, and did not exist for several centuries until the HRE came into existence. The HRE was originally just a figurative title, the "Holy Roman Emperor", which was bestowed by the Pope upon a powerful European Christian monarch. It was more of an honorific that marked that particular kingdom as the heirs of Rome, and was intended as a signal that they were the leaders of Europe. For a brief while, under men like Barbarossa, it had a stronger and more centralized administration, but that inevitably for some reason or another didn't work. It eventually transformed into a complicated system where a few electors of the greatest of the myriad of German states would elect an emperor, typically an Austrian, to officially lead the Germans when they were a confused bunch of independent states. Of course, this incredibly oversimplified story doesn't even mention the weird role of Prussia or all the bizarre politics...and how the system didn't work.

    The HRE was an odd thing, and changed throughout the centuries. No single paragraph like the one I wrote above can be a complete description of them, and I know there could be a dozen people right after me that post "hey, but what about these factors and those effects and how this particular system worked?" on the HRE. The one thing it wasn't, though, was a direct descendant of the Romans. They were Roman in name only, a title bestowed by the Pope.


    On the US, they are the only post-colonial state I would consider adding. However, I tend to focus on more ancient history and not the modern era (as you may notice from several of my other posts and rants), so if I had to pick leaders, I would probably select Washington and Lincoln. If I had to pick a third, T. Roosevelt, no more recent than that. I typically object to 20th century leaders, but America has to be an exception due to its shorter history.

    That being said, if I could have more ancient Civs like the Hittites, I would be willing to sacrifice post-colonial Civs. However, I would first want the HRE transformed into Austria, and that foolish "Native American Empire" to be obliterated. Long story short, there's too many factors to say definitively.
     
  9. Duc de Villars

    Duc de Villars Chieftain

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2007
    Messages:
    8
    Location:
    Somewhere over the rainbow
    I would like to see the Danes, Belgians, Italians, Austrians, Mexicans, and Canadians. But I think also that more modern states like Brazil, Argentina, and other south American countries should be added. They only give ancients for South America... they should give Australia also. Israel should be in the game, they have judaism but no Israel, stupid! I would like to see a feature where different civ's could form a "European Union"... some would say that would ruin a game, but every civ wouldn't join of course.. maybe a limit scaled to the number of civs playing to balance the game? of course all civs would have to have the same civics, etc. to form...
     
  10. quarq

    quarq Chieftain

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2007
    Messages:
    11
    To Antilogic

    About Ironclads. I read the wikidipedia a week ago about ironclads, and its like you state, they had their lifetime of 30 years... but they were not developed and existed more like a prototype. That is why i think the unit should be deleted (there are so many other weapontypes in history that could fill that spot).

    About HRE. What is a civ ? A title ? Its hard to define... but the fall of Rome does have its history. The latin europe, the orthodox east europe and the northern germanic people... the northwestern europe. So Rome have more or less influence in all modern europe. So its a great deal to add Roman as a civ as it obsoletes all other civs in europe (spain, germany, england, france). So the question still remains unanswered... how to determine what civ to exsist and not, and during which time.


    To Duc de Villars The jews where given land after the WWII... that is why there is still conflict there. Besides israel = judaism is a wrong statement. Its a belief not a country. So Israel is a very young country.
    Australians ? You mean the native Australians ?

    If to be strict historical, the old world, including australia should be just settled with barbaric tribes, and late game conquered by the england.
     
  11. Antilogic

    Antilogic --

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2006
    Messages:
    15,602
    As far as I'm concerned, there has to be something to fill the gap between the wooden sailing ships and the modern destroyers. Having ironclads and then a dreadnought-like unit (20 Strength, 5 Move) might be a good setup. Or, add two simultaneous ship classes after the ironclads, like an armored cruiser and a dreadnought, both of which upgrade to modern ship classes. Just do something to fill in the gap better than with an ironclad unit.

    Yes, the fall of Rome does have its history. It was replaced by the Goths, Visigoths, and a number of other settled peoples. But the continuation of the Romans was the "East Romans" who still called themselves Romans, and we call the Byzantines. It was not the HRE. I'm not sure exactly what your point is, but you seemed to indicate before that the HRE was a direct outgrowth of the Roman Empire. It was actually an invention of the papacy, the Germans, and others many centuries after the fall of Rome. The HRE is not the "remnant" of the Romans, at all.

    Also, the Jews had inhabited the lands around Israel in ancient times, also calling themselves Israelites. They were conquered by the Romans, the Persians, the Arabs, and how many other times did the lands change hands in the Crusades before a Jewish state was finally recreated there. However, Israel has a much longer history than Post-WW2.
     
  12. Inspector Javert

    Inspector Javert Prince

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2005
    Messages:
    510
    Back on topic

    Scotland

    Leader:
    William Wallace (Protective, Aggressive)
    Robert the Bruce

    UB: Keep (Castle) +75% Defense Available W Construction
    UU: Highland Clansman replaces mace-man (requires no resources) +25% V Mounted Units
     
  13. Antilogic

    Antilogic --

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2006
    Messages:
    15,602
    Although another modified maceman would be a good shot for a UU, especially for the Scots, I don't like the idea of another Castle UB. Really short lived, and I can't stand playing Spain right now because of that.

    I wouldn't pick the Scots as a first choice...I would probably pick the Hittites and Israelis.

    Coming up with a UB for Israel is quite difficult, actually. You could give them a slinger UU that is a cheaper archer, maybe, and the Spiritual trait for their ruler is a must.
     
  14. Inspector Javert

    Inspector Javert Prince

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2005
    Messages:
    510
    Well I had the castle come with Construction to increase it's lifespan, and perhaps Israels UB could have something to do with either the Ark, the western wall or the temple itself.
     
  15. quarq

    quarq Chieftain

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2007
    Messages:
    11
    Antilogic

    The point of it all, is what i have said... its hard to define a civ. And still harder to choose civs in a computer game. Who are barbaric, and who are not. Its up to each and everyone. (Like i want to have the nords/vikings... which have endured during a large span of time...)

    The boats between sails and combustioned ships... there doesnt have to be a ship in between. There is no timeframe or point to add another unit.
     
  16. Dracleath

    Dracleath Warlord

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2002
    Messages:
    231
    Civs I'd like to see (I'm not particularly going to go the route of trying to justify these as "major" civs, but I think they were all at least somewhat important or notable and would make interesting additions):

    Europe:

    Minoans
    Italians
    Poles
    Lithuanians (pre-christian era)
    Moors/Berbers/Andalusians
    Magyar

    Middle East:

    Hittites
    Israelis/Hebrews

    Americas:

    Iroquois
    Souix
    Apache/Navaho
    Brazil

    Asia:

    Moghuls
    Siamese/Thai
    Malays
    Vietnamese
    Polynesians



    Africa:

    Ashanti
    Shona
     
  17. Dracleath

    Dracleath Warlord

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2002
    Messages:
    231


    Interesting that you should mention those four, as only one of them was in existence as a political entity anywhere near that time period.

    Persia was founded around 550 BC, it was ruled by foreign powers and not a distinct political entity until that time period. Zulus weren't a political entity until around the same time as the (US)Americans, when they created a kingdom for much the same reason the Americans did. Aztecs founded Tenochtitlan in 1325 AD, though other city states and empires (Which were distinctly not aztec and in not related to the mexica ethnic group) existed in the area from around 200 BC on.
     
  18. dannyshenanigan

    dannyshenanigan Emperor

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2007
    Messages:
    1,062
    Location:
    Chicago
    Once again I will reiterate my support for the Majapahit Empire. Indonesia has never been mentioned, while just about every other area on the planet has. Indonesia has a population of over 230 million people I think it could use some representation. The Majapahit Empire covered most of modern day Indonesia and Malaysia from 1293- ca.1500.
    The ruler would be Gajah Mada, the UU could be the Bhayangkara. There are plenty of city names including the city of Majapahit, Trowulan (later capital), and Palembang. I'm not sure what a good unique building could be yet.
     
  19. RedRalph

    RedRalph Deity

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2007
    Messages:
    20,708
    FYI, not many people are aware of this, but disparaging the boot is in itself a bootable offence
     
  20. Dracleath

    Dracleath Warlord

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2002
    Messages:
    231


    Majapahit would be interesting, I wouldn't put it in before Siam but Siam, Majapahit, and Vietnam along with Khmer would give a nice SE Asia representation.
     

Share This Page