Civs - thinking out of the box

[terentius]

I'm currently reading "Empires of the Word" by Nicholas Ostler. As a completely different take on 'thinking out of the box' for civs, what about civs based on languages? As Ostler points out, languages, civilisations and culture are all tied together (the most pithy summing up I've come across is the difference between France and Britain expressed as "complimentary refreshments" versus "free beer!").

Ideas for language-based civs could be:
Celtic
German
Latin
Greek
Akkadian
Arabic
Farsi
Sanskrit
Chinese
Bantu
Japanese
Coptic (Egyptian/heiroglyphs)
etc.

This is probably open to a lot of interpretation and controversy (eg, why not have 'Indo-European' as a super-language? Why have Latin instead of French, Italian and Spanish?), but it might (*might*!) make for an interesting mod...

T

 

[Talkie_Toaster]

This sounds like a great idea , Hope someone makes a mod out of it, what about an anglo-saxon civ? that's a language =]

 

[Yeekim]

Pretty good idea!

I do not recommend defining civs by languages: this would get far too controversial imho. Geography is something much more easily definable.

I also do not think that tying eras with "start and end dates" is a good idea. The system of entrance upon reaching into a certain tier of technologies as in both Civ3 and Civ4 has worked very well I believe. It is simple enough and is logically connected to game dynamics.

However... to think about the amount of research that sort of game would require...

 

[terentius]

Perhaps the best way to give a nod to languages is to make them a factor in cultural victories: can you make your language a 'lingua franca' between two other nations? (For example, as Latin, Greek, English, French and Spanish have been?)

 

[SkippyT]

Scandinavia
A: Finns
(tundra food bonus)
C: Norse
UU - Longship
M: Denmark
(Lief Erikson wonder)
G: Sweden
UU - ?
I: Sweden
UU - Saab Viggen (can use roads/railways as airports)

My list would be like this:

A: Saxons - Forest gold bonus
C: Norse - UU: Longship (warship, replacing Trireme) and Knarr (transport, replacing Galley)
M: Kalmar Union - UB: Trading post (examples: Dublin, Reykjavík, Vinland (Newfoundland), Brattahlid (Greenland), Holgård (Novgorod), Kjonugård (Kiev)) - Sagas wonder
G: Sweden - UU: Peasant Musketman (the warriors that destroyed Russia, Poland and Germany in the 30 years war were peasants)
I: Sweden - UU: Saab Viggen (that one is good )
M+: Scandinavian Union - UB: IKEA

1. The Finns lived in Finland - which is technically not in Scandinavia - although it is a part of the tight community between Sweden-Denmark-Norway-Iceland.
2. The wonder of Sagas, IMO, beat the wonder of Leifur Eiríksson's voyage. (Leif Erickson)
3. I've chosen to pick Scandinavian Union for Modern..it fits better than just "Sweden". We Scandinavians are the same - even though we don't really like each other. We speak almost the same language (even though Danes, Swedes and Norweigan people don't understand Icelandic, but Icelanders understand their language) and having the Kingdom of Sweden and not having Denmark and Norway isn't right..

P.s. this would be a great mod

 

[Shibbyman]

Why is New Zealand under the same grouping as America?

 

[terentius]

I put NZ in with America (and Australia with Africa) based on art-sets, or which styles of buildings, skin colours etc would provide a 'best fit'. Since Australia for most of 'Civ-history' resembles many African nations, I snuck it in there.

For NZ, I know that the routes of migration taken around the Pacific bear no relation to the Americas, but I figure that an Art/Culture set that included Iroquois, Mayans and Incas may also suit Maoris/Polynesians too. Style over substance, I guess...



As mentioned before, none of these ideas are set in stone or even, strictly speaking, correct. But if they can inspire a better game of Civ, and give civs more than one UU or golden era, then I don't care who comes up with the best suggestion - I'm just glad to read them!

 

[SkippyT]

when can we expect this mod?

 

[terentius]

Sadly, I'm not a modder! I started this thread primarily because I was dissatisfied with the current set-up of civilizations in the game, ranging from the individual leaders' personalities influencing their civs (a hangover from CIV 1), to multiple civs when only one was really required (most glaring example would be Greece and Byzantium in CIV 3).

I wanted to suggest something different, and ask what other people thought. Can individual Civs be made deeper, more complex, more unique? If I were a modder, I'd put this into one of the modder threads, but since I'm not, I thought (at this stage) it would be better suited to a purely academic discussion in the 'General Discussions' forum. (For one thing, I wouldn't want my ideas to be seen as the only ones; others have far better in-depth knowledge of certain civs than I do, and I'm refining my ideas all the time as well. Once in a while, I'll post them...)

I think it might be interesting to get to the point where some civs can bypass certain technologies (say, horseriding, the wheel, etc), or maybe have a different style of playing (more akin to the nations in "Rise of Nations", such as the Russians (enemy attrition), Persians (second capital) and Lakota (no 'borders')). Currently, I feel that Civ's civs are still too similar to each other, barring a single UU/UB, leaders better suited to scenarios and a paint job on their otherwise identical units!

Perhaps, sooner or later, I'll post it into the modders' forum and see if anyone's interested in making it real. Whenever that happens, I want to make it clear that it's a group effort, and not just me dictating, "I want to see this and this and this..."

(Ideally, it would be even better if the developers of CIV 5 would take notice!)



(BTW, my original thinking for including Sweden in the modern-era Scandinavian Civ was simply because (as far as I know) it was the only Scandinavian country not to have been occupied, or to have foreign armed forces stationed in it at any time in the past. Your suggestion of Scandinavian Union is probably more politically sensitive than mine!)

 

[terentius]

Beyond the Sword looks like it'll fill some gaps (yay, they're using the Shwedagon Pagoda, Moai statues on Easter Island and the 'Christ the Redeemer' statue... nice to know others think they're worthy as well!), but I'm wondering if there will be any significant changes to gameplay.

As discussed in this thread -
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=191943
- one thing that would radically improve the game is an overhaul of how seas and sea units are used.

I just wonder if changing unit movement rates ought to be considered as well. I mean, travel by the industrial age is far faster than in the Ancient/Classical/Mediaeval eras, and the advent of trains and planes should mean instant movement, right? Until then, at least consider improving the movement rates of all ships...

What do others think?

 

[flyingchicken]

But history was an huge IF-ELSE. What if by some stroke misfortune, Charles Martel lost (or never fought) the Battle of Tours? What if (as stated earlier) the Communist party lost and the Russian stayed czarist?

If the Civ was called "Mughal," then at least the prerequisite ought to be having at least one Muslim city. If the Civ was called "USSR," then the policies at least ought to be communist.

More research! XD A what-if-civic-was-different-then-what-would-the-Civ-have-been-called-in-that-era thing.

For example, the "People's Republic of China" would be called that if it were State Property in the industrial-modern ages, but only "Republic of China" if it's not.

 

[terentius]

Hi Flyingchicken,

But history was an huge IF-ELSE.

For example, the "People's Republic of China" would be called that if it were State Property in the industrial-modern ages, but only "Republic of China" if it's not.

...true, and that is part of civ's appeal, but how much can you change before a nation is no longer the nation you thought you were playing? Why bother having 'national attributes' or unique units when you could simply have a generic Civ2-style nation that's different in name only?

Civ 2 allowed you to give yourself different titles according to your government (eg Theocracy + England = Lord Protector), but this at least had some basis in history (Oliver Cromwell).

I'm thinking more along the lines of making each civ *more* unique, by having specific units/buildings/abilities in each era, and not simply having (for example) Greece summed up by Alexander the Great when there's Mycenae, Byzantium and Athens that could be included as well.

It still allows for the 'what-ifs' you mentioned, but allows each civ's 'flavour' to remain distinct.

 

[flyingchicken]

Alright, I won't bother answering the rhetorical questions.

Another suggestion: I,M+ Slavery USA: Confederate States of America

 

[Glored]

Oriental Culture art set
Indochina
1 -Chamic
2 -Annam
3 -Khmer (Angkot Wat wonder)
4 -Siam
5 -Siam
6 -Siam (Shwedagon Pagoda wonder)
7+ -Malaysia (Petronas Towers wonder, Viet-Cong soldier unit)

Indonesia
1 -Austronesia
2 -Papua-Guinean
3 -Sri Vijaya
4 -Majapahit (Prambanan temple wonder)
5 -Phillippines (Banave Rice Terraces wonder)
6 -Batavia (Malacca pirate ship unit, Dutch East India Co. wonder)
7+ -Indonesia

Malaysia is under indochina but Malacca pirate ship is under indonesia? Malacca is in malaysia.

However, Indonesia and malaysia is of the same root of 'ethnic' (i don't know what word is suitable here). It is safe to say that they share the same 'BC' history, i think.

Siam is what is known as Thailand nowadays, Malaysia was Malaccan Malay Kingdom (Kerajaan Melayu Melaka). My history is bad but every malaysian knows that.

Btw, your concept is interesting.

And If you think some of the tech should be skipped for some civs, malaysia should exclude gunpowder... no, anything scientific altogether hohoho... Replace it with something more of cultural value? Instead of astronomy, replace it with astrology? hehe. maybe medicine can be retained for malaysia civ... (I'm sooooo malaysia-centric).

 

[Comrade Aart]

I like the idea... but if you want to mod it; is this possible:

1) Rename the CIV? I have never bothered to look through the code, but I thought everything like that seems pretty much hard-coded.
2) Change capital? Some of the nations in a same "catagory" had different capitals than their predecessors. Should every city be renamed as well, or should the capital move?

Probably there are more problems to encounter I don't see now. Before modding it, it is best to wait for BtS, I think.

 

[terentius]

Hi Glored,

I think I had Malacca Straights pirates in there as industrial/modern-era pirate units. Correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that the straights are named after Malacca, but the pirates operate out of the Indonesian archipelago, hence the name from one and the unit belonging to the other...

Flyingchicken, what would you do for examples which don't have any historical inspiration - for example, Russia+Theocracy, or America+Communism? I'm just curious about how far the renaming idea can be taken.

Comrade Aart, what if, instead of renaming the whole civ in a new era, each era was renamed for each civ? So instead of the British reaching the Mediaeval era, they reach the 'Anglo-Saxon' era, or China could reach the Ming era, America the Colonial and so on...

Thanks for the feedback!

 

[Comrade Aart]

This on its own is already enough to make a new game out of it.
I have often thought of building a civ clone, because civ is great but too much focused on war and too unrealistic. I would indeed rather have a simulation, where you can build "what-if-scenarios" than a game.

If I will ever feel like building it, I will think of this idea for sure. I would even want to go a step further:
If you want to play with the English for instance, you will start as a Germanic chief in the year 4000BC. When you reach the classical era, the Germanic cohesion collapses and Germanic cultures start to develop independently and hence you're suddenly leader of a part of your "former empire" and only continue with the Anglo-Saxons. In the medieval era your tribe becomes the English, etc. This is something that is (I think) almost impossible to mod in CIV.

 

[Glored]

Hi Glored,

I think I had Malacca Straights pirates in there as industrial/modern-era pirate units. Correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that the straights are named after Malacca, but the pirates operate out of the Indonesian archipelago, hence the name from one and the unit belonging to the other...

You're... umm... theoretically correct... BUT if you want to put it that way, you have to put Malaysia under indonesia. Actually there are no Indonesian culture. The word Indonesia emerged after English Colonization era by, if i'm not mistaken , Suharto, correct me if i'm wrong. Let me quote from another post from me in another thread:

"If i'm not mistaken, in my history lesson (i'm from malaysia) Siamese covers the whole indochina (what now are vietnam, thailand, laos, myanmar and "the mainland countries"). There is another important culture in SEA (South East Asia) the malay/indonesian. They came from the same root of Malay. Before around 1500 AD, there were two major power in SEA (but insignificant to the world) The Srivijaya (siamese) and Majapahit (malay/indo). After that another power emerge that is Melaka (Malacca) founded by Parameswara (a malay/indo). Melaka is the foundation of what known as Malaysia nowadays, or at least that what malaysians believe.

If a SEA civ is to be included, i propose Siamese and Malay. Malay may have two leader that is Majapahit (i can't remember the full name, it was very long) and Parameswara or his successor."

Politically, Malaysia is not included into the mainland countries, instead it is included into archipelago countries despite it is attached to the mainland.

Ok, now i want to repair a BIG mistake I did. Srivijaya was another malay/indo empire apart from Majapahit. One the capital was Palembang, another was Jawa. Sorry for that, my memory tricked me.

That makes 3 important Empire before Melaka exist, that is Siamese, Srivijaya and Majapahit.

 

[terentius]

Hi Glored,

OK, so a 'Siam' civ could cover mainland SEA and 'Malay' the archipelago. In the system I've been tinkering with, Burma, Thailand and Cambodia would be included in the former, Malaysia, Indonesia, and the Philippines in the latter, to guarantee enough material to give the different eras their own particular flavour.

(To be honest, I'm not entirely keen on having Indonesian pirates as a modern-era unit; I think they were in the news when I came up with the idea...)

 

[Glored]

Yes, i think you can divide it that way. Siamese for the mainland and Malay for archipelago. What history have for Siam, we now have Thailand. And that is quite direct i guess.

But for Malaysia, it can be quite umm... tricky. Parameswara was from majapahit kingdom who later established Malacca (Melaka) city-state. Then, after a long struggle for independence after english colonization, most malay states were unified into Malaysia. Majapahit on the other hand becomes what now is Indonesia, although the way it goes is not direct. I mean indonesian does not take Majapahit as their origin. That's what i think. If there's any indonesian reading this forum can you clarify this thing?