Minor Fixes!

[mitsho]

You know, civ is a good game, but it just has some very very very minor things that are 'wrong' in my opinion, but these things aren't really worth fixing. But I thought summing them up ios a quick thing, and why not do it?

• I know, on the first screenshots of civ4 we can read that the tech tree was overlooked 'radically'. But nevertheless I want to tell my 2 cents.
  Shouldn't Writing come before Alphabet? I mean, the first thing in history was that the people invented ways to put some numbers, things, etc. down. And then they tried to improve the system by - yes - inventing better styles of writing, like the alphabet.
• Does it make sense to have Sun Tzu's Art of War? Or Leonardo da Vinci's Workshop? Or Copernicus Observatory? Or ... or .... NO! Not for me, these were humans, not buildings... I therefore suggest to not use any more people names for wonders, etc... There are enough other possibilities to name them.
• The naming of the ages does not make sense. But I think this one has been debated enough....
• Well, I had some more ideas, but I don't recall anyone of them at the moment.

But please complete this list as you want...

mfG mitsho

PS: This thread you shouldn't take too serious.

 

[The Last Conformist]

How does the names of the ages fail to make sense?

(Or are you simply refering to the fact they imply a Western perspective? Well, the only solutions to that are using still less universal ones from some other Kulturkreis, or simply don't have any era names.)

Writing before Alphabet would make more sense. If memory serves, Egyptian and Sumerian writing predate the first alphabets by more than two thousand years.

 

[croxis]

Does it make sense to have Sun Tzu's Art of War? Or Leonardo da Vinci's Workshop? Or Copernicus Observatory? Or ... or .... NO! Not for me, these were humans, not buildings... I therefore suggest to not use any more people names for wonders, etc... There are enough other possibilities to name them.

Wonders don't always have to represent buildings. For example, building the internet seems kind of silly, but if you see it not as something being built but the shields going into research and development then it makes more sence. Building Sun Tzu's art of war can be seen as funding a freelance philosopher who will sell to the highest bidder. Using names of the wonders also help give the player a link to real history. I feel that this is one of those things where the game experience should overrule realism.

Also if we get rid of ages then we wont have to worry about naming them

 

[mitsho]

@croxis Well, I have another opinion. But of course, you can explain the wonders the way that you did. I just ask myself if the developers thought at all at such 'solutions' to explain the shields (like you have done) OR if they just made a decision a la 'sounds good!'.

@TLC Well, you're right. It's just that the 'Middle Age' does not make sense to me. Oh, you could take a less controversial name that does not belong to a Kulturkreis... like for example classical era. But of course, subjective...

mfG mitsho

 

[The Last Conformist]

@TLC Well, you're right. It's just that the 'Middle Age' does not make sense to me. Oh, you could take a less controversial name that does not belong to a Kulturkreis... like for example classical era. But of course, subjective...

But there's no "global" classical era; the Classical Antiquity of the Mediterranean world is well earlier than the Classical period of Mesoamerica, which in turn preceeds the Classical phase of Easter Island. The only periods that are almost global are the Stone Age and the Modern Era.

Now, the "Middle Age" era name is a bit odd even from a European perspective, since the actual medieval period is crammed together into the first third or so of the era, the rest being taken up my the Early Modern Period. But that's a chiefly problem of tech progression.

 

[mitsho]

Who says that these eras have to happen/have happened at the same time? There's no need to be chronological correct in civ (which civ has never been, just think of the turn times...).
And as you summed up, pretty much every 'civ' had a classical era (not all!), and therefore it just fits much better than 'Middle Age'.

mfG mitsho

 

[Jon Shafer]

You want to replace the name "Middle Ages" with "Classical Age" because its not as biased?

How about we rename the Industrial Age to the Age of Nationalism?

Every name you give to eras is subjective. Middle Ages is no more subjective than Classical Age. That's something you have to accept if you want to have names at all.

 

[Spatula]

Plus 'Classical Age' immediately brings to mind steps and columns, and philosophy, not knights and cathedrals. There is a periof of Greek history called 'The Classical Age', during which there was a lot of art and pottery and philosophising to be done.

'Middle' -> 'Medieval' would be good enough for me.

 

[The Last Conformist]

How'd 'Middle'->'Medieval' help?

 

[Civrules]

How'd 'Middle'->'Medieval' help?

Basically the same thing, but I would like Medieval better.

 

[Spatula]

How'd 'Middle'->'Medieval' help?

Because 'Middle' is more of a description than a name, set there for convenience by historians with no imagination.

 

[The Last Conformist]

Because 'Middle' is more of a description than a name, set there for convenience by historians with no imagination.

I entirely fail to see how this is not true of 'medieval'.

 

[Jon Shafer]

LCon is right - Medieval is the same thing. It's essentially the same word, just 'modernized'.

 

[mitsho]

@spatula Ever heard of classical music? Or classical architecture/poetry/etc.? Ok, One of the word's meaning is the one related to Greece. but there are some other! My German Dixionaire gives the following explanation (after quite a few others): "Epoche kultureller Leistungen, deren Anerkennungen auf Dauer Bestand hat." I translate into English: "Epoch of cultural achievements which is accepted on long term/for a long time".
In other words, the cultural boom of a civilization falls into that area. If we still have ages, the timeline would look like this (with a fith age):
(prehistoric)--Ancient Age---Classic Age------Industrial Age-----Modern Age
(gathering,----(states,-----(cultural greatness--(revolution of-----(global!)
first cities)--- exploration)---Imperiums) -----industry and science)------
You can put that scheme on many empires:
Roman? It fell at the end of its classical age (it is said)
USA? 'Ancient Age' (1776 ~ 1840) Classic Age (~1840-1865), Industrial Age (1865-1916?) Modern Age (1916-??)
China? What I know of it it is the same, but I do not dare to write about because I know so few ....

I hope you got the idea. And as I said before, I am not fond of the chronological thing, therefore I chose 'my' ages evolutionary...

mfG mitsho

 

[Spatula]

Why is 'Medieval' to be chosen over 'Middle'? Same reason we say 'Meso-America' rather than 'Middle-America', and the 'Mesozoic Era' rather than the 'Middlezoic' (or even Middlelife) Era'.

Classical music is so called because of its age, and the fact that modern music in essence began with it. The same goes for literature. If Shakespeare and Mozart had been around with Aristotle and produced the same works as they did in real life (not realistic at all I admit because their environment influenced them, not to mention the lack of good instruments and writing material) then they would still be called 'the classics', because that would be where everything now essentially originates from.

The point is that the term 'Classical' has nothing to do with age. You can have the 'Classical Era' of Greece of the BCs, or you can have 'Classic Rock' of the 1960s. 'Classic' has nothing to do with the Middle Ages - it is a word free of time periods.

Ask a historian about Medieval times and they're more than likely to say it started with the era of Knights and ended with the era of Cavalry. And since people seem to hate 'Middle' so much, I can't think of a better replacement name for the period.

 

[Licentia]

Sun Tzu's Art of War is still read today by militaries around the world. It defintely had an impact. Let's not get to changing things like this. It's just not necessary. It's not like gameplay is really suffering because we have Sun Tzu's Art of War instead of "Military Shrine" or something like that. These forums are too full of suggestions that change things that aren't broken, so much so that Firaxis would never be able to get through the crap to find the gold.

 

[mitsho]

Who says that these eras have to happen/have happened at the same time? There's no need to be chronological correct in civ (which civ has never been, just think of the turn times...).
And as you summed up, pretty much every 'civ' had a classical era (not all!), and therefore it just fits much better than 'Middle Age'.

@spatula I think I can just quote myself to answer you.

@licentia There are bigger problems, ok. That's why I wrote that these are minor fixes and that there are bigger ones (look my first post). And don't get me wrong, I know that Sun Tzu has done great things to the world and I acknowledge that. BUT Why do we have to put his name in front of the wonder? Just 'Art of War' would be enough. Because that is the title of the book (if we take it as a wonder). I myself am just against personalizing of history.

Btw. Does somebody NOT agree that writing should come before alphabet? Does anyone think that it's right the way it is now?

mfG mitsho

 

[croxis]

The problem is that its not just an art of war or an observitory or a workshop, its specific and special books observitories workshops and discoveries.

 

[MikeLynch]

Here's a minor change:

Rename Small Wonders. I like the concept, but the name recalls the awful '80s sitcom. Something like "Marvels" or "Masterworks" would be better. That way Wonders can remain Wonders and won't require the redundant "Great" in front of it. "I just built the Great Wonder Great Lighthouse! Isn't that, um, great?"

 

[MikeLynch]

I know that Sun Tzu has done great things to the world and I acknowledge that. BUT Why do we have to put his name in front of the wonder?

I think that's just a Civ tradition, naming some Wonders after somebody. (Of course, I took out "of Mausollos" from the Mausoleum just 'cuz I didn't like the sound of it ... but that's me.)

Does somebody NOT agree that writing should come before alphabet? Does anyone think that it's right the way it is now?

It is not right from a historical/linguistic perspective, but it is right from a learning perspective, sort of. Western youngsters learn the alphabet first, the application of it second. I suspect that if Civ4 put Writing first, then Alphabet afterward, Sid would get so much mail from people complaining that "Everybody knows Alphabet comes before Writing!" that he would grunt angrily and release a patch putting it back the way it was.

Plus, this too may just be a Civ tradition. Like the presence of Elvis, somewhere.