New Civilizations

[Keirador]

One way could be to have a pool of points for each civ, say 3 points, this points could be distributed to create a UU as a mod of a basic unit.
So if I want to create a UU for the Milanese, I could create a "Giussano swordman" as a modification of the swordman and I could either make it +3 attack, or +2 attack +1 defence, or +2 attack -1 cost, and so on

I like this idea, but it needs a bit of work. First off, each movement point should probably be worth two A/D points, because, to me at least (and also apperently to article-writing experts like Ision, Zardnaar, and Scoutsout) movement points are far more valuable than A/D points.
Also, how does one account for special abilites like bombardment, enslavement, stealth attack, invisibility, hidden nationality, bombard range, sight range, etc.?


Alafin-
I like you. You're very well educated. Are you a scholar or a teacher?
However, one quick debate point. The Myceneans did have a lot of influence over Greece, but they did not dominate the entire peninsula, merely the southern Peloponnesus. Therefore, much of what we unanimously consider classical Greece arose without significant Mycenean, and therefore Minoan, influece, just like the Macedons. It is a complex question indeed.
You're right about the ancient Greeks ostracizing the Macedons, though, different Greek city-states often declared each other un-Greek, usually as slander. Macedon recieved quite a lot of this because it was a much larger kingdom than any of the classical Greek realms, therefor an object of jealous hatred. However, Macedonians *were* invited to compete in the Olympic Games, a sure indicator that at least some Classic Greeks believed the Macedons to be fellow Hellenes.
On the other hand, only a limited number of Macedons were sent to Olympia. Macedon held its own "Olympic" Games at Dion near Mount Olympus. Perhaps this was because Macedon's population was so much larger than other Greek realms, or perhaps it was because many Greeks would not accept the Macedons as fellow countrymen.
It is becoming clear that the Ancients probably had the same debate we're having now.

 

[Alafin]

Indeed!

As to the geographic spread of Mycenaean culture, you are correct in identifying the southern parts of Greece as the center of the culture. It is where the majority of palace sites are located (Pylos, Tiryns, Argos, Sparta, and Mycenae itself among others). But in the Iliad there is a list of the places that sent troops to fight in the Trojan war, and were, therefore, what we are calling Mycenaean Greeks. They range from the islands to the west of the mainland, from Crete, from the Peloponesse, from Athens and Attica, from Thebes & Gla in Boeotia and other parts of central Greece, all the way to Larissa in Thessaly, mythical homeland of the centaurs (& location of the genuine Mt. Olympus). This pretty much covers all the territory that later produced the classical city-states of Greece.

Interesting stuff about the Macedonian games. I did not know that.

I'm studying to become a history teacher and just have a deep and abiding interest in all things historical, archaeological, and cultural.

Alafin

 

[Keirador]

Though the Mycenean from Argos Agamemnon led the Greeks to war, the Myceneans were not the only combatants in the Trojan War. One of the reasons the Trojan War was so epically important was that for one of the only times in history (the other times being to fight off the Persians) all the Greek peoples united against a common enemy. Mycenae did not *own* all the city-states that went to war with Ilium(Troy), it merely commanded a coalition of allies.
Also, I could well be wrong, but I've always operated under the assumption that Attica *was* Athens?

 

[mitsho]

Attica is the region around Athens, and therefore, yes, it's nearly the same. Comparable with Rome - Latium.

mfG mitsho

 

[Alafin]

What he said!

I suppose you are closer to the truth, Keirador. Mycenae was the most important of the cities in Greece at the time, but probably didn't have enough organization and power to "own" other Greek cities outright. Exactly how they interrelated will probably never be fully known.

Alafin

But it sure is fun to speculate!

 

[Keirador]

It appears we have nothing left to debate about.
I almost regret it.

 

[Dreadnought]

I think that some new civs could be...

Austria-Hungary (one of the most powerful contries in pre WW1 europe) Militaristic, Industrious Archduke Francis
Hebrews (one of the longest lasting civs) Religious, Agricultural, King David
Pheonecia Commercial, Seafaring King Abdalonymus
Sioux Militaristic Expansionist Chief Sitting Bull
Eithiopia Commercial Agricultural King Ezana
Huns militaristic expansionist Warlord Attila

of course in civ4 they're gonna have new traits, but I just thought of these

 

[Keirador]

Dreadnought-
Austria-Hungary is a bit redundant, as they are a German people, who speak German, with a culture very similar to Germany's (SIMILAR, not IDENTICAL, I don't want any Austrians or Germans to get mad at me about this. I'm not saying Austrians have no cultural identity, I'm just saying that compared to other cultures, they're pretty close.) and a history very much entwined. In fact, it is evident that the developers intended Germany to represent Austria as well, as Salzburg, an Austrian city, is in the German city list.
I agree with the Hebrew's nomination as a Civ, but I thought the most obvious traits for them would be Religious and. . . Commercial? Not to encourage any ethnic slurs, but lets face it, that people has a knack for investment and banking. During the Middle Ages they pioneered banking techniques as Europes ONLY bankers, and even today control much of the West's commerce and banking.
As for the Sioux, they were definately militaristic, but as nomads they didn't really have any territory to expand. . . maybe religious instead?

 

[Keirador]

Here's an improbable and controversial idea for a Civ: what about the Catholic Church? Religious and either Commercial or Expansionist, their capital would of course be the Vatican, their leader could be a more famous Pope such as Innocent or Urban, and one could even produce a large city list, either directly from the Medieval Papal States in Italy, the names of Diocesan capitals, or simply cities throughout history that were highly influenced or controlled by the Catholic Church. There are a plethora of choices for a Unique Unit; Crusader, Missionary(perhaps a non-combat scouting unit), Inquisitor, Swiss Guard, Knight Templar, Hospitaller, Teutonic Knight, or simply a generic warrior-monk.
When you think about it, the Catholic Church really is a valid contender for the title of Civilization; just like any religion, they have had as much or more influence as any valid nation-state (they were easily the most dominant European nation for hundreds of years), but what seperates them from most religions is that they have a definite political organization just as complex as any nation, plus the fact that they actually were (and still are, to a smaller extent) a nation. I mean, sure, they're not an ethnically homogenous group, but neither are the Americans! Give it a think.

 

[PeteAtoms]

It is an undeniable fact, the Catholic church is probably one of the largest and most organized religions in the world, and it is obvious that they played a crucial role in Medieval Europe and internationaly, (how many of you can honestly say youve gone to a hotel without a bible in your room?). If they were to be a civ definately Rel. and Commercial. But i think they are as close to becoming a civ as Texas. But there's an idea, make California a civ! we do have the 7th largest economy in the world just by ourselves (who needs the other 49 states, jk). Our leader would be Arnold S. and we could be commercial and Industrial

 

[Keirador]

I initially thought of the Catholic Church idea more as something to argue about (I love debate) than as a real proposal, but the more I think about it, the more it makes sense. They fit every qualification for a civilization, and in fact would be a better contender than some Civs that already exist! The Catholic Church had far more influence and world importance than the Iroquois, had better political organization than the Mongols,had a better economy than the Zulu, had more national pride and unity than the Americans, and controlled a larger land area than the Koreans! It seems an absurd idea, but I can't think of a single valid reason that the Catholic Church shouldn't be considered for a Civilization!

 

[sir_schwick]

During the middle ages the Papacy controlled large amounts of land in Italy. Here is a great idea for a UU - Crusade. A Crusade is an Army by a different name, but costs only 200 shields and could be built in any city with a Cathedral. Of course the one per 4 cities rule still applies. All Crusades would disband(troops would now be normal) once Nationalism was discovered. Of course if Armies are removed from the form they are now this would have to be different.

 

[Keirador]

What an interesting idea! It would add realism (but also a bit of extra work and confusion) if the Crusades cost nothing (or next to nothing), but can only exist during times of war, and only so long as that war is popular with the people. After all, if the people did not have a religiously zealous devotion to the war, there could be no Crusades. I am liking this idea more and more, the Catholic Church (or maybe the Papal State would be a better name?) would add a very interesting aspect to the game.

By the way sir schwick, did you notice the several-page long discussion between Alafin and myself your offhand comment sparked? Impressive power you wield.

 

[Keirador]

PETEdaVIKING-
I assume you suggest California as a joke (since, unlike viable option Texas, it was never a soveriegn nation) but I was intrigued by the claim that California has the seventh strongest economy in the world. I have heard this claim before, and I don't understand it. First, by what measure are you comparing economies? GDP? GDP per capita? Growth rate? Industry diversity? Comparing economies has always been a tricky business.
Also, what are you comparing it to? Are you operating as if California was a seperate nation, and comparing it thus to all other nations? Because if so, these statistics are skewed because California's trade with the rest of the states would be more expensive, not too mention it would have to provide more of its own energy, which would probably be enough to crush its economy right there.
Or, are you comparing it to every other state, province, or other administrative division in the world? If this is the case, which would the accurate way to measure, then I doubt its truth, at least as far as GDP per capita and growth rate are concerned; I can think of at least 7 administrative divisions in Europe and the Pacific Rim that have higher GDP per capita than any American equivalent (though because the countries are smaller than the US, we still compare favorably as a nation).
I'd really appreciate and enjoy it if you could shed some light on this "California has the 7th strongest economy in the world" thing; I know it has some massive high-tech industries, but I'd have thought its problems with energy supply and its quasi-socialist public policies would *at least* level the playing field. That socialism thing is the Black Hand of Death to economies.

 

[Vietcong]

the problem is with some of u ppl is u want to put in civs like puru, chili, indonesia, sierbia, ect. civs that have had no major impact on history, or have had no major culter ect
civs that i fill are left out that chold be implamented are
1, assyria
2,ancent isreal or judea*spelling*
3,phonicea
4, perhaps a south east asian civ, not indoisea as its history is quiet recent perhaps the one that made that timple on java *i think thats it*
5, thiland *its hundreds of years old, atleast from what i know 1200 something, and has never been colonized*
6,ethiopiea*spelling, thay have had a long history, and if not ethiopia, a accent counterpart will do*
7, perhaps another native american civ, maby the siux *spelling, the conffederation led by littel big horn*
thees are just some simple ideas i got of the top of my hear

 

[sir_schwick]

I just found my original comment and finally had time to read through all the Macedon vs. Hellenes arguments. Very interesting.

I also read on the UW idea. Here is my idea. Unit cost is now calculated like this = Base Cost + (10 * N). N would be a number determined by what upgrades you choose to design for a variant. The first upgrade for Attack, Defense, Bombardment, Rate would be 1 N. The first upgrade for Movement, Range would be 2N. Any special abilities(movement, heal in enemy territory) would be 3N. Each further upgrade would be double the previous one. So if you made a 5/2/1 Swordsmen, that would 1N for the first attack upgrade, and 2N for the second. That means its cost would be 40 + (10*3), so 70. A 3/2/2 Swordsmen would be 60, and a 3/2/3 Swordsmen would be 100. As for UUs, each Civ would have a unit type which they get -1 N. This way unmodified units cost 10 shields less, or they can upgrade something for free or cheap.

A 99/99/99 Warrior would cost so much it could never be built. Now a 5/5/2 Warrior with Enslave would cost 10 + (10*35) or 360 Shields. For the price of a good wonder you would get a unit that would be powerful, but not unstoppable. A 5/5/2 Swordsmen with no Iron Requirement would be 190 Shields.

Downgrades could be done the same way, to make room for important upgrades. You could have a 2/1/2 Swordsmen that cost 40 shields if you had iron but no horses. You could also make a 3/2/1 Horsemen that costs 40 shields if you had horses but no iron. You could make Knights with 3/2/2 stats that are 80 shields but dont' require a resource rather than being 100 shields.

 

[Keirador]

Archbishop of Towels, this sort of mathematical system is exactly the sort of thing I was looking for. The only drawback is the "appeal to beginners" factors. The system of customizing Civs that we are trying to figure out a way to establish is not supposed to be something only modders and veterans do, we want it to be accesible from the start-up screens. Therefor, the Unique Unit designer would need a much more stream-lined interface. Any ideas, oh Provider of Arguments and Solver of problems?

 

[sir_schwick]

Some things that would really help make each game of civ unique.

1) You get to choose your traits at the beginning of the game, and change then whenever you enter a new era.
2) You choose which 'civ's faces, names, artwork, etc. are used.
3) All units would use my design system, but get -1 N modifier. Each civ has a list of units and artowkr that is unique to it, although they would be very comprable to other civs units(Enkidu Warrior vs. Jaguar Warrior would be the same before modification).
4) You could desing custom civs (using existing or imported pieces) at any time, so you could jsut load one whenever you wanted to play with it.

Beginners could play with pre-fab factiosn, and when they had learned the ropes would be able to do the rest.

 

[Keirador]

I disagree with the whole changing your traits for each new era. This might be more realistic, but I think it would make what are currently very important and strategy-making decisions far too easy. Who would ever pick a trait like scientific or commercial in the Ancient Age? Or Expansionist or Agricultural in the Moderan Era? I think trait-changing would only limit the ways this game could be played.
Besides, on a historical note, societies did not change their emphases based on what era they were in, change was usually only in responce to a new limiting factor, or the removal of an old limiting factor.
This is all probably a pointless discussion, though, as *hopefully* there won't be "eras" in the same sense there were in Civ 3. While the four generic European eras made the game simpler, their removal and an entire re-imagining of the tech tree would make the game more fun, more varied, and more realistic. There may also be a new "trait" system.

 

[sir_schwick]

I was mostly suggesting changeing traits at eras because I highly doubt they will remove eras. If there were no eras, more realistic and logical methods would evolve to change traits. Although I do see yoru point, it would be better if traits did more for a player. Currently Expansionistic gives you a special unit every civ should have. It should allow for a lot lower corruption and cheaper settlers, etc.