Remove Ai decending into civil war?

[zbelg]

Mabye theres a way to compromise. Mabye collapsed civs could have a set amount of turns to become more stable before their capital collapses.

I like this idea. I don't think the AI is generally aggressive enough to be able to take all their cities back, but at least if they have a chance to stay alive (but still considerably weakened) more modern civs could be represented, and ideally stay in their homeland if they got too land hungry.

Maybe just make new leaders to represent the modern times for these nations and add some new dynamic names? (like German Greater Reich and Union of Soviet Socialist Republics).

Dynamic names are already in the game and as far as I'm aware are well updated to modern times, unless they don't follow their intended course of history (Russian Empire becoming the Soviet Union, etc.) in which case it wouldn't make much sense anyway.

People have proposed new leaders before and while I do like the idea, I really miss leaderheads changing with the eras in Civ3, the problem I have with it is that there are a lot of fan made leaderheads that frankly don't compare to the quality of the originals. It may not seem important, but considering that this is a purely aesthetic issue, I'd much rather have diplomacy with Montezuma in 1990 than deal with palette swaps of FDR leading every country.

Still, I have seen some pretty impressive modern leaderheads (namely Castro and Mussolini) so I may be acting a bit too skeptically. If someone were able to make nice and original looking leaderheads for people like Ali Khamenei and Saddam Hussein for Persia and Babylon, it may actually be pretty cool.

 

[BurnEmDown]

And Mussolini for Italy (Modern-time Rome), as you mentioned, unless It would be wrong for him to appear in the game (like Hitler).

 

[Deego3]

Why not add a General Franco for Spain?

 

[Rod]

Persia = Iran
Babylon = Iraq
Rome = Italy
Carthage = Algeria/Tunisa/Libya

In my opinon, we shouldnt get rid of these civs because they are still a part of the modern world.

Why I want to get rid of these is not because I dont want these areas to be represented in the game, but I prefer them to be represented in the idependent way in order to make room for different Modern Civs who would prove to be more challenging.

Babylon was a power in the Ancient Times, but is only a weak occupied country in Modern Times. Hence you dont need an extra slot for a civ in this area. On the other hand it would be pretty interesting to solve the rising problems of Modern Brazil like unification of the South Americas, rising pollution, deep rooted poverty and corruption.

Hence you could establish new UHV like Control the SA, have recycling centers and hospitals in all cities etc.

 

[Panopticon]

On the subject of leaderheads, you may be aware of the modification made by (I think) SadoMacho, which collected together many new modern-era leaders in particular. I don't have the original file on my computer and it's not online, but the quality of the work is pretty high.

 

[Rhye]

I would NEVER consider Mussolini Roman or Saddam Babylonian.

 

[Lone Wolf]

I do consider Modern Respawned Islamic Babylon = Iraq, but only in that case.

 

[Panopticon]

My view is:
- RFC is a history simulator.
- Some civilisations in history have changed so greatly that the original culture became a minority (e.g. Aztec, Inca), or the arrival of Islam made some cultures change immeasurably (e.g. Babylon, Carthage).
- These changes made the revival of a state like Babylon, along the lines on which it was originally organised, impossible. One can see how a strong culture like China has kept on splitting and re-splitting as a united political unit over the years, but Babylon? Hardly.
- If Babylon is going to be revived by the game mechanics anyway, we might as well make it representative of what would have actually happened in the context in which it happens. That means an absence of Turkish or Arabian influence over Mesopotamia.
- That is why I don't think Iraq as Babylon is any more of a distortion, in the context of RFC, than Babylon as a 20th century state.

I don't believe that analysis applies to every civ in the game. "Vikings" was never a civilisation in history, sure, but it's credible that the kind of national identity which prevailed then could still prevail now. The same would have applied to India or Cambodia (Khmer) in the 1940s. On the other hand, some civilisations like Babylon, Inca or Western Rome were more or less destroyed as national self-identities.

 

[Virdrago]

My view is:
I don't believe that analysis applies to every civ in the game. "Vikings" was never a civilisation in history, sure, but it's credible that the kind of national identity which prevailed then could still prevail now. The same would have applied to India or Cambodia (Khmer) in the 1940s. On the other hand, some civilisations like Babylon, Inca or Western Rome were more or less destroyed as national self-identities.

"Babylon" represents Mesopotamian culture, including Sumerian, Babylonian, and Assyrian. If "Viking" culture can be credible today, so can Babylonian, especially if you know a little about the Assyrian diaspora.

Also, many South American Indians from Peru, Bolivia, and Ecuador still equate with the old Inca identity.

Maybe it's because of oppression (economic and religious), but they have the same national identity as many recognized "nations" do today, as well as certain 19th century European people without their own countries did.

 

[Rod]

You know the only Assyrian diaspora that I heard of are somewhat 50.000 people living in North-West Iran in a mountain valley that is difficult to reach and hence they were more or less left alone by the differing authorities in these regions for the last 2000 years.

The Modern Islamic Iraq has nothing in common with Mesopotamia. Not the language, not the religion, not the culture. There are no bonds between Babylon and Iraq. Iraq is not a successor of Babylon, but it is a Federation out of 3 major peoples coincidentally living in the same territory as the old Babylonian emipire, thats it.

 

[Panopticon]

"Babylon" represents Mesopotamian culture, including Sumerian, Babylonian, and Assyrian. If "Viking" culture can be credible today, so can Babylonian, especially if you know a little about the Assyrian diaspora.

Also, many South American Indians from Peru, Bolivia, and Ecuador still equate with the old Inca identity.

Maybe it's because of oppression (economic and religious), but they have the same national identity as many recognized "nations" do today, as well as certain 19th century European people without their own countries did.

What I know about the Assyrians is that they are a very small minority in modern Mesopotamia, even before the 20th century. On a different note, if "Babylon" can represent Sumer, Babylon, and Assyria, why not Iraq?

I mean, it's simply not credible that a Babylonian state could be created today. The most glaring problem is that most people in the region self-identify as Muslim rather than Babylonian, and the religious (etc) basis for Babylonian cultural identity would be equivalent to paganism to a large majority of those people.

I would be reluctant to categorise the Inca as similar to Babylon. Aztecs would be a much better example of a state which hasn't been revived, and due to minority status, never will.

 

[BurnEmDown]

I agree that Babylonian culture doesn't exist today, but if the name could be change to Iraq or something like that, why should you adress it as Babylon? I mean the settler maps are pretty much the same, and with a new leader to represent modern times what's the problem?

 

[Deego3]

You can just change one of the dynamic names (a modern one like the Babli Republic) to Iraq

 

[Rod]

but it wouldnt be the same, it would still be the old state with the old boni and mali (or is it bonusses and malusses in English ?), the old stability and the old uhv. Better just to leave the region independent and too ensure that Babylon does not respawn after 600 AD

 

[Lone Wolf]

and the old uhv.

The AI does not go for the UHV anyway, so what?

the old stability

Its stability would start anew.

or is it bonusses and malusses in English

Bonuses and maluses. The way you put it, it sounds like snake language.

I don't see why Persia should not respawn.

And no Brazil or Canada for me, thanks. That would be unfun, severely limiting colonization for the human player (Why found a city if it will flip?) Besides, I like colonization and strong AI empires.

 

[thadian]

The AI does not go for the UHV anyway, so what?
And no Brazil or Canada for me, thanks. That would be unfun, severely limiting colonization for the human player (Why found a city if it will flip?) Besides, I like colonization and strong AI empires.

Agreed! One thing i really like in a strong AI empire, is its ability to last and not collapse as a penalty for colonies. How would Spain, Portugal, Netherlands etc live?

I think that after a certain year, that Egypt, Babylon and MAYBE persia, as well as the greeks should be "Axed" from being respawnable. it sucks when there is a good arabia just to have it collapse when Babylon and Egypt respawn, or to have greece respawn (and last what, 9 turns?) ruining germany. Rome does the same to germany and france. Carthage respawn has never hurt my games, and i often go head over heel to keep them alive with gifts, but their rebirths are often short lived. I hope as i play the new version more i will see less of this.

I like to see AI empires stronger than my own so that i am forced to play my "A-Game" or lose.

 

[Louis XIV]

I wrote in an earlier post that instead of a civilization going under, it should just lose all of its cities except its capital when it collapses into civil war.

This doesn't mean that the civs will all continue to exist throughout the game though. Capitals will be taken by other civs (for example, the Turks taking Athens, the Arabs taking Babili, etc.), and in this case, the civ will then cease to exist.

I just hate the fact that in some games, half the map is independent.

 

[Lone Wolf]

instead of a civilization going under, it should just lose all of its cities except its capital when it collapses into civil war.

Result: The AI turtles in that city for the entire game, muttering something about "enemy Independent borders". Besides, it doesn't help to improve the speed, AFAIK.

 

[Virdrago]

You know the only Assyrian diaspora that I heard of are somewhat 50.000 people living in North-West Iran in a mountain valley that is difficult to reach and hence they were more or less left alone by the differing authorities in these regions for the last 2000 years.

The Modern Islamic Iraq has nothing in common with Mesopotamia. Not the language, not the religion, not the culture. There are no bonds between Babylon and Iraq. Iraq is not a successor of Babylon, but it is a Federation out of 3 major peoples coincidentally living in the same territory as the old Babylonian emipire, thats it.

Until 1920, most Jews lived in parts of Russia, Western Europe, and the United States. By 1947, *poof*, in pops Israel, back where the original Israel of King David once was.

The Assyrian diaspora includes communities in Europe, Australia, Canada, and the U.S., as well as Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Turkey (the original homeland). They also hope to one day have an Assyrian nation back where they once had their empire's base. They are Christian, not Muslim, and they generally marry only within their own communities, like many Jewish communities did in Europe throughout the Middle ages.

Remember that this is a sim. Babylon repawns? Well, maybe Islam and the Ararbs didn't destroy the Babylonian "culture", just like Germany not respawning may mean that the Germans have their own diaspora in your game, and are gone, maybe for good. Same with Carthage, and other supposedly "not modern" civs that you may think don't "deserve" to respawn.

 

[Panopticon]

But what's more likely: the forlorn hope of emigrants being realised, or the installation of a totally different regime based on different tenets due to the long foreign domination of Mesopotamia (first Persia, then Arabia, then Turkey; at least two of these normally get Babylonian lands)?

What has happened more often in history? The first case has Israel on its side (and possibly the Mormons if you believe their foundation myth). The second case has more examples in history than we can usefully enumerate.

There's no need to put "deserve" in quotation marks; I don't believe that Carthage deserves to respawn. In nine out of ten cases, it's inappropriate, just like the original Babylon or Aztec or Rome would be if it were to appear in 1800. Contrast that to the one out of ten cases where renaming those civs would be inappropriate.