Caveman 2 Cosmos (ideas/discussions thread)

[BlueTemplar]

But an ideology tracking system would be what the population believes in differing regions and cities and even within units. If your civics are in agreement with the people's opinions, you'd have much improved stability.

While certainly more realistic, I'm kind of worried about how much this would rob players of agency... not to mention the difficulty of making it legible to the player ! (See again : the issues with the Revolutions modmod.)

That's why I mentioned civics : they abstract most of this into anarchy turns, civic-tied penalties (which might be direct penalties or just lesser bonuses compared to what other civics provide), and diplomacy modifiers. (Also worldviews I guess, which are kind of harder to change, less legible civics ?)

Overall, this seems like it would be a better fit to a Paradox Development Studios game, rather than Civ ?

 

[Somebody613]

Overall, this seems like it would be a better fit to a Paradox Development Studios game, rather than Civ ?

Welcome to Caveman Kings 3000!

On the other hand, this IS partially what I was "hinting" at with my view on cultures and stuff, lol.

 

[Thunderbrd]

While certainly more realistic, I'm kind of worried about how much this would rob players of agency... not to mention the difficulty of making it legible to the player ! (See again : the issues with the Revolutions modmod.)

With entertainers and promos they could get, as well as some other plans for how we'd make songs, books, stories, radio programs, movies, etc... and how executives and missionaries would be adjusted to work, you'd have tons of player 'agency' over every aspect. It would just be... a very difficult to master game of puppeteering where if you pull on one string too hard, you may create problems you didn't expect, ones you could solve, but yes you might end up chasing your tails worth of issues all over the place and letting things be more organic and addressing only the symptoms rather than the underlying diseases might be just as fun as all attempts to micro. Obviously, I'm not looking to make something that would be non-optional for players who want simpler games.

It may well be that ultimately in the end this is only possible with a new game engine.

 

[pi4t]

I just noticed that there are two different Solomon's Temple wonders: the shrine, and a world wonder that can be built once you get to Construction. Can I suggest that the world wonder be renamed Herod's Temple, and the pedia entry adjusted accordingly? It's a Classical era wonder, so that fits the timeline better too.

 

[Somebody613]

I just noticed that there are two different Solomon's Temple wonders: the shrine, and a world wonder that can be built once you get to Construction. Can I suggest that the world wonder be renamed Herod's Temple, and the pedia entry adjusted accordingly? It's a Classical era wonder, so that fits the timeline better too.

To be most precise, the most correct names would be First/Second Jerusalem Temple(s).
Mostly because "someone's temple" kinda implies "temple of worship of someone", or at least "by someone", neither being correct whatsoever in this specific case.
Solomon was neither the subject of worship nor the main worshiper in the Jerusalem Temple, after all.
He was just its builder, which is never used as a naming reference of temples, or pretty much any "wonders" altogether (with maybe the exception of some Pyramids, sorta).
And there are no other significant historical buildings that could be named Jerusalem Temple in any sense whatsoever, especially as a recognizable name.

 

[pi4t]

To be most precise, the most correct names would be First/Second Jerusalem Temple(s).
Mostly because "someone's temple" kinda implies "temple of worship of someone", or at least "by someone", neither being correct whatsoever in this specific case.
Solomon was neither the subject of worship nor the main worshiper in the Jerusalem Temple, after all.
He was just its builder, which is never used as a naming reference of temples, or pretty much any "wonders" altogether (with maybe the exception of some Pyramids, sorta).
And there are no other significant historical buildings that could be named Jerusalem Temple in any sense whatsoever, especially as a recognizable name.

The reason I suggested Herod's name, other than fitting in with Solomon, is that the Herodian temple is technically not quite the same as the second temple. The Second Temple was built by the Israelites after the return from their exile in Babylon, but it wasn't as impressive as the original because they were a conquered people and didn't have a lot of resources. Herod later expanded it massively, mainly for political reasons. Although it's arguably less important religiously, and certainly didn't last as long, I'd argue that Herod's version is more suitable for a classical great wonder (in Civ terms) than the second temple in its original form.

And for the record, "Solomon's Temple" is the title of the wikipedia article on the first temple, and the article on the second temple mentions that it was also known as "Herod's Temple" after he'd done his expansion. So I think these are valid names for the buildings we're talking about.

 

[Somebody613]

The reason I suggested Herod's name, other than fitting in with Solomon, is that the Herodian temple is technically not quite the same as the second temple. The Second Temple was built by the Israelites after the return from their exile in Babylon, but it wasn't as impressive as the original because they were a conquered people and didn't have a lot of resources. Herod later expanded it massively, mainly for political reasons. Although it's arguably less important religiously, and certainly didn't last as long, I'd argue that Herod's version is more suitable for a classical great wonder (in Civ terms) than the second temple in its original form.

And for the record, "Solomon's Temple" is the title of the wikipedia article on the first temple, and the article on the second temple mentions that it was also known as "Herod's Temple" after he'd done his expansion. So I think these are valid names for the buildings we're talking about.

I still think it'd be better to go by its functionality (in this case, unique geography), and not by its builder.
Additionally, it creates a very possible confusion that there were two distinct "wonders", one by Solomon and one by Herod, when it was in fact the same "wonder" simply being rebuilt anew.
The physical buildings were separate, but their function and placement was identical, which means there was only one "wonder", the Jerusalem Temple, but also split chronologically.
Yeah, that sounds weird, but I like it better than making an impression/implication that there were two distinct Temples context-wise.
Never mind, lol, I have it hard trying to explain my point here.

 

[Thunderbrd]

One must wonder if there would ever have been a 2nd one if the 1st had never been destroyed.

I really do think there were some very special things that were taking place in the oddities of the descriptions about how it was to be built and what was to happen there. As well as all the prophecies surrounding its 'rebuilding', which I suspect may be possibly given wider interpretations if I was to understand the original words in use and the ranges of what they could have meant at the time of writing...

Anyhow, this is perhaps one of the more interesting topics in all of world history really.

 

[Somebody613]

One must wonder if there would ever have been a 2nd one if the 1st had never been destroyed.

I really do think there were some very special things that were taking place in the oddities of the descriptions about how it was to be built and what was to happen there. As well as all the prophecies surrounding its 'rebuilding', which I suspect may be possibly given wider interpretations if I was to understand the original words in use and the ranges of what they could have meant at the time of writing...

Anyhow, this is perhaps one of the more interesting topics in all of world history really.

I was merely talking from Civ's perspective, otherwise I'd go ranting (kinda) into pages and pages of info, lol.
But that was exactly my point: the Second Temple is basically the First Temple, just from different stones.
It's not a separate "wonder" in any context besides the physical materials it was built from... that's on one hand.
On another hand, the actual buildings did have certain differences, within a certain margin of "variability", so very technically they were separate "wonders" as far as blueprints went.
It's a combo of yes and no, really.
But my point was more that it makes more sense to call the building by its function and not by its builder - simply because no "wonder" is called that way anyways.
Besides, maybe, some Pyramids, which are called after their supposed builders and/or "hidden mummies".
But that's still mostly questionable, and some Pyramids are still called by their geography anyways.
So it really makes more sense to me to call it the Jerusalem Temple, the only question being whether you split it into two separate Temples (and Eras), or maybe not.
But probably yes, even if it "kinda" makes it slightly confusing naming-wise.
Side point: I'm open to any "off-topic" questions on this and similar topics, just reminding everyone about it.

 

[Thunderbrd]

I was merely talking from Civ's perspective, otherwise I'd go ranting (kinda) into pages and pages of info, lol.
But that was exactly my point: the Second Temple is basically the First Temple, just from different stones.
It's not a separate "wonder" in any context besides the physical materials it was built from... that's on one hand.
On another hand, the actual buildings did have certain differences, within a certain margin of "variability", so very technically they were separate "wonders" as far as blueprints went.
It's a combo of yes and no, really.
But my point was more that it makes more sense to call the building by its function and not by its builder - simply because no "wonder" is called that way anyways.
Besides, maybe, some Pyramids, which are called after their supposed builders and/or "hidden mummies".
But that's still mostly questionable, and some Pyramids are still called by their geography anyways.
So it really makes more sense to me to call it the Jerusalem Temple, the only question being whether you split it into two separate Temples (and Eras), or maybe not.
But probably yes, even if it "kinda" makes it slightly confusing naming-wise.
Side point: I'm open to any "off-topic" questions on this and similar topics, just reminding everyone about it.

Well except that it is always referred to as the temple of soloman.

 

[Somebody613]

Well except that it is always referred to as the temple of soloman.

Which doesn't automatically make it a correctly concocted reference as far as the actual building functionality goes, lol.
Never mind, obviously.

 

[Thunderbrd]

Which doesn't automatically make it a correctly concocted reference as far as the actual building functionality goes, lol.
Never mind, obviously.

no but if its what people know it to be then changing the name there would be like renaming the sphinx because some sort of naming convention in science says we should start calling it some latin phrase. In terms of naming we need to relate to audience expected standards rather than technicalities.

 

[tmv]

Which doesn't automatically make it a correctly concocted reference as far as the actual building functionality goes, lol.

Should alcohol be renamed to ethanol then?

 

[Somebody613]

Should alcohol be renamed to ethanol then?

Why would it be?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcohol
Alcohol: an organic compound in which a hydroxyl group is bound to a carbon atom.
Ethanol: one of several alcohols, commonly known as alcohol in everyday life.
They are NOT the same entity, but one is a subtype of the other.
Whereas "Solomon's Temple" and "First Jerusalem Temple" ARE the same entity, just named by different factors of it.
The same way "Wailing Wall" and "Western Wall" ARE the same entity as well, despite being named differently by different people.

 

[tmv]

Why would it be?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcohol
Alcohol: an organic compound in which a hydroxyl group is bound to a carbon atom.
Ethanol: one of several alcohols, commonly known as alcohol in everyday life.
They are NOT the same entity, but one is a subtype of the other.
Whereas "Solomon's Temple" and "First Jerusalem Temple" ARE the same entity, just named by different factors of it.
The same way "Wailing Wall" and "Western Wall" ARE the same entity as well, despite being named differently by different people.

Alcohol, as in the game, is ethanol. Other types of alcohol, especially methanol, are highly toxic.

 

[Thunderbrd]

Should alcohol be renamed to ethanol then?

Exactly. This is the whole point. Despite ethanol being the ONLY alcohol we drink to get drunk or it would be a life threatening poison (yes, in high enough volume even ethanol is), we still only call it alcohol when we want to drink alcohol. It's non-specific, and a touch inaccurate to refer to it this way, but its what people say so would be silly to try to correct in C2C on the principle of moniker accuracy.

 

[Somebody613]

Exactly. This is the whole point. Despite ethanol being the ONLY alcohol we drink to get drunk or it would be a life threatening poison (yes, in high enough volume even ethanol is), we still only call it alcohol when we want to drink alcohol. It's non-specific, and a touch inaccurate to refer to it this way, but its what people say so would be silly to try to correct in C2C on the principle of moniker accuracy.

Not sure about his point, but mine was that ethanol is not the same as alcohol, but a subtype of it.
Kinda like in some cases people call "chicken", "bird" - precisely because it's basically the only "bird" that appears in that (food) context.
Which is absolutely not the case in regards to the Temple - Solomon's Temple is not a subset of Jerusalem Temple (or at least not if we specify it being the First one), it's just a different name.
Simply because there are no other Jerusalem Temples in the first place - there's only one structure of this name, albeit in two distinct "variations" chronologically.
So I really don't see how it resembles alcohol or chicken, where the named entity is explicitly a subset of another more general entity.

 

[Thunderbrd]

Not sure about his point, but mine was that ethanol is not the same as alcohol, but a subtype of it.
Kinda like in some cases people call "chicken", "bird" - precisely because it's basically the only "bird" that appears in that (food) context.
Which is absolutely not the case in regards to the Temple - Solomon's Temple is not a subset of Jerusalem Temple (or at least not if we specify it being the First one), it's just a different name.
Simply because there are no other Jerusalem Temples in the first place - there's only one structure of this name, albeit in two distinct "variations" chronologically.
So I really don't see how it resembles alcohol or chicken, where the named entity is explicitly a subset of another more general entity.

Because people don't generally call it Jerusalem Temple. It's always referred to as Solomon's Temple.

 

[Somebody613]

Because people don't generally call it Jerusalem Temple. It's always referred to as Solomon's Temple.

Not exactly, but this is also a language issue, like I see.
My main language is Russian, I also speak Hebrew, so English is clearly secondary for me in this context.
So:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solomon's_Temple is for English.
But:
https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Первый_Храм is for Russian, and means "First Temple".
It does mention "Solomon's Temple" as an alternative name, but it's not how the Wiki page itself is named - it's named "First Temple" instead.
And the same goes for Hebrew - also "First Temple", not "Solomon's".
So it depends on the language.
And the exact same thing goes for the Wall:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Wall for English.
But:
https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Стена_Плача for Russian, and means "Wailing Wall".
Yup, it's all in the language - and it's far from being as ethanol as your alcohol may smell, loool.

 

[Thunderbrd]

Not exactly, but this is also a language issue, like I see.
My main language is Russian, I also speak Hebrew, so English is clearly secondary for me in this context.
So:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solomon's_Temple is for English.
But:
https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Первый_Храм is for Russian, and means "First Temple".
It does mention "Solomon's Temple" as an alternative name, but it's not how the Wiki page itself is named - it's named "First Temple" instead.
And the same goes for Hebrew - also "First Temple", not "Solomon's".
So it depends on the language.
And the exact same thing goes for the Wall:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Wall for English.
But:
https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Стена_Плача for Russian, and means "Wailing Wall".
Yup, it's all in the language - and it's far from being as ethanol as your alcohol may smell, loool.

Translators can always do their thing in other languages and establish the more common terminology. In the case of Russian, First Temple.