Hope Civ3 doesn't repeats this very bad mistake in Civ2

[TrailblazingScot]

The USA would be a munkin race...BUT first they have to rebel from england...those redcoats are gonna get you!

America rebelled over a tax on tea...confused kitten pays tax on near everything!

 

[Tripa]

nope sorry ill have to agree with animepornstar on this one,
i also think that Civ3 AI should play by what is around them, if they have lots of trade recorces around them they should become a trade civ, if they start in a desert maybe make them 3rd world or somthing there is so much more they can do nowdays that it dosnt need to all be programed, (like Civ1) and hows the saying go rewright history well thats kind of hard when the civs are playing just like they did thousands of years ago i think if they do it by the civs soroundings it will make the game much more interesting for each time u play

[}S{]Tripa[}S{]
Skaven Leader www.skaven.allhere.com

 

[thealien_83]

Actually it is a game, not an exact simulation of our history. If we wanted everything to be and happen PRECISELY the way it did in history we wouldn't need players right, all we'd have to do would be to have them record a game where the world develops by itself and then watch it...

Maybe the japanese of the real world were strong in military but weak otherwise, but that does by no means mean that they would had they been located elsewhere. * shrugs * I'm actually dandy without that idea, and IF they would incorporate it I would hope for it as an option, not something you always have to deal with...

 

[spiralx]

Having "realistic" civilisations misses one of the key points of why the Civs have been such great games IMHO - the fact that no two games are the same. This is why we're still playing Civ II, SMAC and similar games years after their releases.

If however each of the civs always persues exactly the same strategies in each game, then as soon as you encounter them you will know how to react. If you encounter a peaceful society you know you can engage in trade and not bother building up your defences, and if you encounter a warlike one you know to begin preparations for combat. This means that the mystery of a new games is reduced.

Besides, it is at the end of the day a game, not a historical recreation

 

[allhailIndia]

I would prefer if civs could mould the way they are culturally,tradewise and militarily. All these were developed due to a whole range of different factors and making them all predictable would make the game boring

 

[walkergrae]

Personally I'd like to see each civ's traits derive from its geography and resources. It would also be nice if the so called special units where also derived the same way.

If the Persians start in the right place with good access to iron, maybe they should be the ones to develop the Legion and an early tradition of a warring culture.

Same old nature vs. nurture argument, but both apply.

[This message has been edited by walkergrae (edited May 24, 2001).]

 

[HomeAir]

I really don't want to recreate history. That sounds pretty boring. I can pick up a history book and read how things are suppose to turn out if I wanted to go that route. I want each game to be different, at least to the point that when I am halfway through another game, I don't say "didn't I just get done doing that."

 

[Xenophon]

Okay, Okay, The Americans did not rebel over a tea tax. the original goal of the "rebellion" was to force the king and parliament to treat the colonists and subjects of the Crown. There by permitted representaion in London. And furthermore
the off base remarks about German and Japanese culture are unfouned. Germans gave us Mozart, Nietzsche, Goethe, the brothers Grimm, and some fine Art. The Japanese gave
us Haiku. If any of you have tried to write Haiku, then you Know how hard it is to make a point AND make sense.

Long live Sparta.

 

[EntirelyBS]

I would go for a switch/setting that could be toggled as in Civ2 at the "customize rules" part of a new game. Allow for "traditional" AI values or "all the same". This would have some cultures behave like they did throughout history, or to have a random attempt, so you wouldn't be able to predict who would do what (which is more realistic).

 

[BushCantRead]

i think that cultures should start in their designated spot, but like entierly bs said, having a on off switch would be nice b/c in a random map, cultures wont be in their defined spot, so it would not make to much sense without some sort of world map

------------------
He could not would not with a fox
He could not would not in a box
he could not read if he pleased.
so how did he win the presidency?

 

[Bakunin]

I think it would be cool if civilizations changed their attitude over time instead of always being predictable. For example, the Germans could start out focusing a lot on culture and not a lot on military (most people don't know this, but the Germans weren't always extremely militaristic and Leon Trotsky even called them a "nation of dreamers") and then wheel around and ignore their culture at the expense of military once you reach the modern age. The Zulus, meanwhile, could concentrate on trade in ancient times and become really militaristic in the industrial age when they fought the English in real history.

I think that if you make things too much like real history though, you are losing the point of making a civilization game - which is running history back over again. I always thought the most important thing was the surprise of seeing where all the civilizations turned out, instead of seeing things play back the way they really happened. What if the Romans were a peaceful people, while the Chinese built up great legions to conquer the world?

 

[kundor]

The story and behavior of the people is set by the environment, as climate type of terrain, the prescence of enemies, etc.

There's a game called the Rise and Rule of Ancient Empires where the terrain a cities' built on determines the proficiency of the units it builds...forest cities make good forest units, etc....which is sort of like this, it makes civs specialize in one type of combat based on where they started.

 

[TTG]

I loved the model in Civilization 1 (BIG suprise <IMG SRC="http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/wink.gif" border=0>) of fixed attributes for civilizations. It was like a touch of realism in an otherwise unhistoric game.

I think it could be changed, though, to provide a little more variety. Perhaps each civilization could have a set of rulers with different characteristics. For example, the Greeks might have a democratic ruler (don't ask me who) and also Alexander the Great, and possibly a third as well. Then at certain points in the game, the leader would change. It could only change once or twice or so otherwise the civilization would be out of control. Perhaps it could coincide with changes of government, or with great military success or failure. Like if the civilization is democratic but being pushed back on all fronts, Alexander the Great would take over.

This way, there would be about 50 leaders or so in the game. It would be okay to have them fixed because it would be a great feat to have to memorize them all. And kudos to people who do!

------------------
Moderator Action: Plz use a smaller image for you sig! thanks. ~TF
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

[This message has been edited by Thunderfall (edited June 13, 2001).]

 

[Loaf Warden]

Originally posted by TTG:
For example, the Greeks might have a democratic ruler (don't ask me who)

Pericles, probably.

But I don't think this would really work. For certain civs, they'd run out of names too quickly. Especially when it comes to female rulers. Sure, it would be easy enough to crank out names for the Americans and the English and the French and so on. But how many Zulu leaders can you name? They've already had to fake it with certain civs where the female ruler is concerned; for example, they call the female Aztec ruler "Nazca", but Nazca was not a person. It was a tribe of people in Peru, nowhere near the Aztecs. (And does anyone know whether "Shakala" was ever a real person? She may have been, but it seems contrived to me.)

 

[TTG]

Female rulers??? Who said anything about women? Women belong in the kitchen...

No, seriously... Who cares about forcing inclusion of Male/Female leaders if their weren't any in history! If female players want to play as a female leader that never existed they can just pout for all I care. What's so politically incorrect about sticking to history in an historic game?

How many nations have actually had Female leaders? England certainly (Elizabeth I is a Civilization staple leader anyway), France (Joan of Arc would be interesting in civ3), Canada had a female Prime Minister for a few months after Mulrooney resigned. . .

In short, I never said anything about putting female leaders in that never existed in history. I don't think it would be difficult to find 3 significant leaders for every civilization.

Think of the differences between Imperial China and Communist China, or the difference between Greek cultures (I already mentioned), or how much the USA changed from Washington's time to Lincoln's to the World War II - present industrial superpower... Or India before the British arrived and again after they left (so to speak). The Germans, too... You have the barbarian visigoths of Roman times, the Prussian/German empires of Frederick the Great (and others), the Nazis under Hitler, and the modern democratic Germany. I could go on... the possibilities here are endless.

------------------
Civilization I Master of masters and webmaster of
Civilization III Arsenal

 

[Loaf Warden]

Um . . . they already included female rulers for every civ in Civ II. My assumption was that they would do this again in Civ III, though I haven't read anything that confirms or denies that. (Actually, I have my doubts, considering all the detailed leader head animations. They may be going back to the old one-leader-per-civ model after all.) Some of the names were rather contrived, but like you said, not all civilizations in history have had a prominent female ruler. This may not have been an absolutely necessary thing for them to do, but I don't see that it harms anything. I'm sure many of our fellow civers that happen to be of the distaff persuasion don't want to be called things like 'King Catherine I' whenever they play any more than I want to be called, for example, 'Queen George III of the English' just because the default leader of that civ happens to be a woman. I realize that in the grand scheme of things, this is only a minor point of no great consequence. Still, I'd rather have both options there.

 

[Rexx]

Mostly i hope we will get back this old feeling to play a cool game like it was with civ1.
I cannot explain it, but in my opinion civ2 doesn't have the game atmosphere like civ1 has. I suppose this happened when it was transferred to

windoze 3.1 and 9x. This transition killed some nice things like the Dan Quale chart or the riots in the city view(now we have a dialog-box with a message in windoze-style)or the "Japanese scientists invented steam engine" screen, in civ1 you could see changes in your city: tents becoming huts, after that becoming medival houses, stone build houses, modern buildings...
All these graphics gave civ1 a good atmosphere and with the changing map you had the feeling to form a living and growing civilization. Most of it had been cutted for windows

, only the map and the gameplay survived but directx will give firaxis the opportunity to bring this old good stuff back