My ideas for this game

[darkedone02]

Rynes of rise and falls of civilization is a great game, i play this a few times and enjoyed it except the amount of lag i been getting in the game. I have some great ideas for this game, and this idea involve the custom tech tree

I want this game to go all the way back to the age where humans become cavesmans, all the way to the predicted future of our selves. there will be many technology and many ages.

I want to start at when the cavemans have appeared everywhere in the world, and also the disappearance of them as well, then after that, the dawn of the stone age, then it continues on history, the broze age, Iron Age, and many ages that go along history. THERE MUST BE REALISTIC, place in the right area and also to LIMIT TECHNOLOGY, i don't want cavemans already learn gunpowder and granades... Technology limit till your reach the right time, once the time have been reach, the technology will be unlocked. continue doing this so that many civilizations won't be so overpowered and such. Now here is the problem now, choosing the civilization. I say when we start, we cannot yet choose our civilization till after the stone age, then we can select our civilization. I hope this is possible and don't prove a big hassle to deal with, if it is impossible to do, then my idea will not come true (wow that ryeims (SP please)).

 

[Rhye]

i don't understand exactly which technologies could be interesting before the invention of the wheel, domestication, hunting etc.

 

[Prestidigitator]

I disagree about civilization names not being chosen until after the stone age... It makes no historical sense what so ever! the Sumerians knew themselves and who they were 5'500 BC, the Babylonians knew who they were over 3'000 BC, why should civilizations wander in the land until some period??? I don't get it.

 

[darkedone02]

Well, then how about just adding a custom Tech Tree with lots of technology from the dawn of man to the predicted future. Just that.

 

[Carolingian]

Sorry for replying to this old thread, but it seems that bumping is fashionable in Rhye's forum, and I like darkedone02's suggestion a lot.

Basically, I'd love to see the tech tree extended further back in the stone age. This is roughly how it could be done: we start without settlers in the "nomadic hunter-gatherers" age with something like the Mongol camp from the Genghis Khan scenario. We can settle down only when we acquire a specific tech that allows the production of settlers. After settling down, we take control of the appropriate civilization depending on time and location. For instance we cannot settle down as Mongolia before the late twelfth century. How does this sound? How difficult would that be to implement?

 

[onedreamer]

it sounds bad because it is beyond the scope of the mod. There is another mod whos focus is on the dawn of man / stone age. This mod starts in 3000 BC, which means far beyond the dawn of men or the nomadic age, at least for the civs that start in 3000 BC. Sumerians and Egyptians lived in big cities much before this date, and they knew hunting, fishing and agriculture from a while as well.

 

[Úmarth]

Sorry for replying to this old thread, but it seems that bumping is fashionable in Rhye's forum, and I like darkedone02's suggestion a lot.

I think you will find that it is a certain group of people who are making a concerted effort to bump old threads (who aren't regular posters on this board), don't ask me why. I'm curious as to how you even found this thread though, was it on the last page or something?

Given that the game is called Civilization, extending it before, you know, Civilization, seems somewhat silly.

 

[Churchill's Hat]

Sorry for replying to this old thread, but it seems that bumping is fashionable in Rhye's forum, and I like darkedone02's suggestion a lot.

Basically, I'd love to see the tech tree extended further back in the stone age. This is roughly how it could be done: we start without settlers in the "nomadic hunter-gatherers" age with something like the Mongol camp from the Genghis Khan scenario. We can settle down only when we acquire a specific tech that allows the production of settlers. After settling down, we take control of the appropriate civilization depending on time and location. For instance we cannot settle down as Mongolia before the late twelfth century. How does this sound? How difficult would that be to implement?

First of all, Umarth was right. Many people with post counts below 30 in this forum seem to be replying specifically to old threads. Also, just because something's is 'in', doesn't make it right.

Secondly, Rhye stated he won't do it. Unless you're willing to do a lot of work on your own creation because someone who disobeyed netiquette just to ask something you said you wouldn't implement, then please don't ask Rhye to do it.

Thirdly, that's what Civilization is. When you settle, you create Civilization. This is the 'Rhye's' of Civilization. When you are eliminated or break into a group of squabbling city-states, that's the Fall of Civilization. At which point in this do you expect to see nomads being nomads for hundreds of years?

 

[Carolingian]

I think you will find that it is a certain group of people who are making a concerted effort to bump old threads

You will also find that a certain group of people is making a concerted effort to open new threads. Uhmmmm... conspiracy?

Given that the game is called Civilization, extending it before, you know, Civilization, seems somewhat silly.

Despite its name, the game "Civilization" includes barbarians, who aren’t exactly what we call “civilized” people. If there already are barbarians, why not nomads too?

By the way, most historians don't restrict use of the term "civilization" to sedentary cultures only. In fact, historians often speak of "nomadic civilization" as opposed to sedentary ones.

Rhye stated he won't do it. Unless you're willing to do a lot of work on your own creation because someone who disobeyed netiquette just to ask something you said you wouldn't implement, then please don't ask Rhye to do it.

I'm not asking Rhye to do anything. I am only developing Darkedone's idea. So, Churchill’s Hat, what's your opinion on adding nomads?

 

[Úmarth]

I realise that the term Civilisation isn't completely PC however those historians are using the term wrongly. Anthropologically speaking (which, ftr, is my degree subject) Civilisation refers to sedentary, urban peoples practising agriculture and to be honest I've never heard it use differently. Barbarians are indeed in the game, but they're an unplayable game play element. You might as well say, "Forests aren't exactly what you'd call 'civilised' but they're in the game".

 

[Fluke Bit]

I realise that the term Civilisation isn't completely PC however those historians are using the term wrongly. Anthropologically speaking (which, ftr, is my degree subject) Civilisation refers to sedentary, urban peoples practising agriculture and to be honest I've never heard it use differently. Barbarians are indeed in the game, but they're an unplayable game play element. You might as well say, "Forests aren't exactly what you'd call 'civilised' but they're in the game".

I'd like to chime in just to say that the OB (original bumper?) of this thread is essentially correct is saying that the word civilization is also used to describe nomadic peoples. Cities and civilization are not necessarily connected in so-called 'civilizational theory'. Even the great historian Toynbee avoided that association and in his monumental study of human civilization, 'A Study of History' (1961), viewed nomadic civilizations as having existed (see especially vol 12).

I am surprised to hear that anthropologists use the term differently, in a narrower way. But then again I have often found that, in comparison to historians, anthropologists tend to be rather narrow-minded. C

 

[Úmarth]

It's not narrow-minded or even narrow, it's just a way to distinguish two very different models of subsistence and society. There's no value-judgement contained in the term.

I'm sure you're right and Mr Toynbee did use it like that (back in the sixties), however since "cave men" fall under the realm of anthropology not history I think they have right of way here.

 

[onedreamer]

if what my Toynbee says is true then we also have the African Lions Civilization or the Canadian Wolves one.

 

[Otto I]

if what my Toynbee says is true then we also have the African Lions Civilization or the Canadian Wolves one.

Wait a minute... what's going on here? Are you implying that nomadic humans are like wild animals??? You are Italian, right? I know that in your country nomads are not held in high esteem, but this is going a bit to far...

 

[AnotherPacifist]

Wait a minute... what's going on here? Are you implying that nomadic humans are like wild animals??? You are Italian, right? I know that in your country nomads are not held in high esteem, but this is going a bit to far...

I agree. Haven't you seen 10000 BC? They speak English, and can throw javelins about twice as far as us, and killed the Egyptian king-god. So much for civilization.

 

[onedreamer]

AFAIK, thieves aren't held in high esteem anywhere in the world.
Also, I am italian but this does not mean I am a fascist. Moderate your subtle implications. I did not imply anything like you have yourself made up, my thought is that certain answers are just completely useless. Saying "This is not necessarily true" without providing the alternative is just plain useless to a discussion. It's the same as saying that language and traditions don't define a culture without providing WHAT defines a culture. In the same way, if you don't define "civilization" you can claim that wolves are a civilization.

 

[Úmarth]

After all wolves and lions are exactly the same as human barbarians in CIV! Maybe Sid Meier is a fascist?

I agree. Haven't you seen 10000 BC? They speak English, and can throw javelins about twice as far as us, and killed the Egyptian king-god. So much for civilization.

Thankfully no I haven't

 

[Otto I]

AFAIK, thieves aren't held in high esteem anywhere in the world.

Uh-uh. Now it's getting even worse. You're basically implying that nomads are the same as thieves. You know, this is the same sort of generalization made by those who have recently burnt to ground the gipsy camps near Naples.

Also, I am italian but this does not mean I am a fascist. Moderate your subtle implications.

I never said you were fascist, not even "subtly". In fact, I did not mention the word "fascist" at all. You remind me of that ancient Roman motto: excusatio non petita accusatio manifesta. Unasked apology, evident self-accusation.

 

[dionysos2048]

I really don't like the direction this thread is taking.

 

[Carolingian]

I really don't like the direction this thread is taking.

Neither do I! Can we get back on topic please?

Enough with pointless musing on the meaning of the term civilization. Darkedone and I made a suggestion, and I would like it to be discussed on its own merit (no more semantics please!).

P.S. to Umarth: actually there is a official mod from the Warlord expansion in which barbarians are playable. It's called Barbarians!. By your reasoning, to have such a mod in a Civilization game is a contradiction in terms. Go and explain your funny anthropology to the developers...