How to make your game more historicly acurate
- Thread starter FascistRepublic
- Start date
Well, the Vikings from the Middle Ages don't. They had their culture destroyed, as I just said. Of course, Greenland, Iceland, Denmark, Norway, and Sweden still exist. And no, it's not. All civs have to start in the same age.
psweetman1590
Emperor
Actually Choxorn, you can indeed make different civs start in different ages. I think you have to go to the Edit Player screen, or something like that (different from the multi-tabbed Edit Rules screen; I think you get here through Scenario Properties). You can edit the starting era, starting techs, and starting gold of all civs in the game. 
Yes, psweetman is right. The Age of Discovery conquest uses this to make the indigenous American civs start in an earlier age than the European ones, for example.
The medieval Vikings didn't have their culture "destroyed" any more than any other cultures in the Middle Ages did. They changed, same as all other cultures.
The medieval Vikings didn't have their culture "destroyed" any more than any other cultures in the Middle Ages did. They changed, same as all other cultures.
Fine, but the Medeival Vikings are very different from the modern vikings. Then again, every civ changed when it changed ages...
I think I'll count them as still alive: Norway, Denmark, Iceland, and Sweden (Greenland belongs to Denmark, and there aren't that many people on it, so it doesn't count, unless someone protests)
I think I'll count them as still alive: Norway, Denmark, Iceland, and Sweden (Greenland belongs to Denmark, and there aren't that many people on it, so it doesn't count, unless someone protests)
thetrooper
Misanthrope
- Joined
- May 24, 2004
- Messages
- 9,084
Modern vikings?!?
There is no such thing as modern vikings.
There is no such thing as modern vikings.
psweetman1590
Emperor
There is, however, a modern Scandinavia...Which happens to include the exact same countries.
Actually, MAS has a good point about Rome's civilization continuing into modern times as the "western civilization." A lot more of our laws and customs are based on the Romans than most realize until you start to read about such things. This is way outside of the scope of the game actually and is going to be a blow to playability.
Other notes.
I think the Aztecs helped the Maya disappear.
I think "Arabia" would be the destroyer of Egypt, Rome possed them but they still existed as a client state.
While the Vikings were never exterminated, the defeat of King Harald Haradraa by King Harold of England in 1066 is considered the end of the Viking age.
I think having the "Byzantine" empire gives more playable civs, but it's really like having two Romans. This is argueable of course, but the Byzantines never refered to themselves as such, the term was invented by a historian in the 19(?)th century to differentiate the eastern empire that lasted longer as opposed to the western empire.
It's hard in this discussion to seperate "civilization" from "culture". There are Iroqouis and Maya and Aztecs and others of that ethnicity still living. Actually, "Aztec" is another name given by others, the "Aztecs" called themselves "Mexa" which helps us if notice Mexico is basically founded on their territory, Mexico City is their old capital. Was their civilization destroyed or transformed?
I'm closing up now, I don't want accidently go against the forum rules as this is starting to feel like it might need to move to the off topic historical thread.
I just wanted a jet bomber with rocketry.
From post #137
Other notes.
I think the Aztecs helped the Maya disappear.
I think "Arabia" would be the destroyer of Egypt, Rome possed them but they still existed as a client state.
While the Vikings were never exterminated, the defeat of King Harald Haradraa by King Harold of England in 1066 is considered the end of the Viking age.
I think having the "Byzantine" empire gives more playable civs, but it's really like having two Romans. This is argueable of course, but the Byzantines never refered to themselves as such, the term was invented by a historian in the 19(?)th century to differentiate the eastern empire that lasted longer as opposed to the western empire.
It's hard in this discussion to seperate "civilization" from "culture". There are Iroqouis and Maya and Aztecs and others of that ethnicity still living. Actually, "Aztec" is another name given by others, the "Aztecs" called themselves "Mexa" which helps us if notice Mexico is basically founded on their territory, Mexico City is their old capital. Was their civilization destroyed or transformed?
I'm closing up now, I don't want accidently go against the forum rules as this is starting to feel like it might need to move to the off topic historical thread.
I just wanted a jet bomber with rocketry.
From post #137
Marsden said:
Well, the Romans were destroyed, and the Vikings had their king killed, so I'm counting them both as gone. Side Note: Rome conquered Egypt, and in the past, so did the Hyksos, Persians, and Macedonians. But Rome was the one who managed to assimilate them, and stay in control. So I'm saying Rome. The Byzantines had it later, when the Roman Empire split in half, And then the Arabs conquered the middle east, Northern Africa, and the Visigothic kingdom in Spain. But let's not get into a history lesson, okay?
I don't see why having a king killed counts as destroying the civilisation - surely every civilisation in existence has had kings killed. Which king are you thinking of anyway?
In Civ terms, I think that a civ counts as a rather vague cultural/political unity, which can develop and count as the same, but which ceases to exist when conquered by another such civ. So I would say you are right to see Egypt as falling to the Romans, and the Romans falling to various barbarian tribes. But by these criteria the Vikings have never been destroyed any more than the French and Germans have. They're just not called Vikings any more - and of course they never called themselves that anyway.
In Civ terms, I think that a civ counts as a rather vague cultural/political unity, which can develop and count as the same, but which ceases to exist when conquered by another such civ. So I would say you are right to see Egypt as falling to the Romans, and the Romans falling to various barbarian tribes. But by these criteria the Vikings have never been destroyed any more than the French and Germans have. They're just not called Vikings any more - and of course they never called themselves that anyway.
What do you mean the French and Germans have never been destroyed? France was under German control in WWII, and Germany was under British/Russian control immediately afterwards. Also:
-Spain was once under control of the Muslims.
-Portugal was once under control of Spain.
-The Middle East, America, and India were once controlled by England.
-England was once under control of the Normans (French)
-Dutch were under control of Germany in WWII.
-The Koreans were under control of Japan for quite a while.
-The Chinese were once under control of the Mongols.
So, according to what you're saying, Japan, Russia, Turkey, and the Scandinavian countries are the only civs still existing!
-Spain was once under control of the Muslims.
-Portugal was once under control of Spain.
-The Middle East, America, and India were once controlled by England.
-England was once under control of the Normans (French)
-Dutch were under control of Germany in WWII.
-The Koreans were under control of Japan for quite a while.
-The Chinese were once under control of the Mongols.
So, according to what you're saying, Japan, Russia, Turkey, and the Scandinavian countries are the only civs still existing!
psweetman1590
Emperor
Actually, the Normans were Scandinavians who settled in France.
Saying Spain was controlled by Muslims is inaccuarate, because at that time there was no such thing as Spain. Similarly, when the 13 colonies and the Middle East were controlled by Britain there was no such entity as the United States, Iraq, Lebanon, or Jordan. They were created afterwords - that is, they were not conquered as you imply.
In addition, although the country of the Netherlands was conquered, their culture persisted throughout the occupation, and the royalty fled to England. Thus one could make a very convincing argument that they were never completely conquered. France's culture also survived the war, and the Free French opposed the Nazis from their base in French colonies. They too were not completely destroyed.
Germany was not completely conquered after WWII: the entire country was not overrun when peace was signed, they created their own government, and the allied/Soviet troops stationed in Germany were more to stare each other down than to truly occupy the country as if it were a conquered territory.
History is often much more complex than it first appears. Often there are arguments about such basic things on the true definition of fuedalism and whether or not a fuedal system existed in Russia. A case can be made for almost any nation surviving invasion if the culture of the people is left intact and if leaders exist. The Babalonians, you'll note, came and went several times. As did the Egyptians, like mentioned. Still, they retained their culture and were eventually attained their independance again.
Saying Spain was controlled by Muslims is inaccuarate, because at that time there was no such thing as Spain. Similarly, when the 13 colonies and the Middle East were controlled by Britain there was no such entity as the United States, Iraq, Lebanon, or Jordan. They were created afterwords - that is, they were not conquered as you imply.
In addition, although the country of the Netherlands was conquered, their culture persisted throughout the occupation, and the royalty fled to England. Thus one could make a very convincing argument that they were never completely conquered. France's culture also survived the war, and the Free French opposed the Nazis from their base in French colonies. They too were not completely destroyed.
Germany was not completely conquered after WWII: the entire country was not overrun when peace was signed, they created their own government, and the allied/Soviet troops stationed in Germany were more to stare each other down than to truly occupy the country as if it were a conquered territory.
History is often much more complex than it first appears. Often there are arguments about such basic things on the true definition of fuedalism and whether or not a fuedal system existed in Russia. A case can be made for almost any nation surviving invasion if the culture of the people is left intact and if leaders exist. The Babalonians, you'll note, came and went several times. As did the Egyptians, like mentioned. Still, they retained their culture and were eventually attained their independance again.
Mirc
Not mIRC!!!
Turkey? Turkey has been controled by a lot of countries: first the Greeks and Hittites, then the Persians, then the Romans, then the Byzantines, then Ottomans, and now, the state called Turkey is controlled by various turkic people.
Edit: Crosspost. I don't know what's wrong with me. My last 4 posts were all crossposts, and one was crossposting with about 6 posts above!
Edit: Crosspost. I don't know what's wrong with me. My last 4 posts were all crossposts, and one was crossposting with about 6 posts above!
knigh+
.
The issue is not Turkey, it is Turks. Since Turks were identified as a nation in history, they always had some independent kingdom or empire in central Asia, Persia, or Turkey. While today's Turkey was Byzantine, there were Gokturk, Kutluk, Uigur and Seljuk empires (plus smaller sultanates). If anything, Turks have lost various capital cities in central Asia, but always had other cities to put a new "palace" in.
History is more complex than quantum physics, due to the fact that historians are idiots (and history contradicts itself everywhere). Just ask the guys who (in civ3) write the great books!
- Joined
- May 5, 2005
- Messages
- 10,070
As this is more a "mod-conception" thread, I think it´s okay to give my 2 cents to that not yet completely satisfying solved problem, so the discussion was some time ago.
In my mod cavalry upgrades to Wyrm´s nice WW 1 armored cars (one HP more) like all other tanks of that era (in my mod).
To solve the problem of appearing cavalry units on horses in the 1950´s, you can set the unit graphics era specific (see the settler, worker, army or leader). If the era-4 graphics (modern time) for the cavalry units are set to armored cars, even the cavalry units that were not upgraded and did survive to that era are looking a little bit more realistic for that periode and it´s not uncommon for a modern unit to be named "Cavalry". Only the equipement has changed: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1st_Cavalry_Division_(United_States)
Sort of. More of a "how to make a historicaly accurate mod" thread.
Here's a suggestion: We were once trying to make 2nd UU's, so here's one for the Aztecs: Eagle Warrior, replaces Spearman, I can't think of a replacement.
I first thought of making it faster (like in AoEII), but the Zulus arleady have the Impi. And there's already a 1.3.1 unit (Hoplite), a 2.2.1 unit (Bowman, even though it does replace archer...), and a 2.3.1 unit (Numidian Mercenary), and a 10 shield cheaper unit(Enkidu Warrior). And I didn't want to make it too powerful... Any suggestions?
Here's a suggestion: We were once trying to make 2nd UU's, so here's one for the Aztecs: Eagle Warrior, replaces Spearman, I can't think of a replacement.
I first thought of making it faster (like in AoEII), but the Zulus arleady have the Impi. And there's already a 1.3.1 unit (Hoplite), a 2.2.1 unit (Bowman, even though it does replace archer...), and a 2.3.1 unit (Numidian Mercenary), and a 10 shield cheaper unit(Enkidu Warrior). And I didn't want to make it too powerful... Any suggestions?
Mirc
Not mIRC!!!
Give him the ability to enslave?
