• Our friends from AlphaCentauri2.info are in need of technical assistance. If you have experience with the LAMP stack and some hours to spare, please help them out and post here.

There are 2 hard problems in comp. science: cache invalidation, naming things, and off-by-one errors

From the other thread:
Vuldacon said:
Concerning Game Names, it is true that most names have been taken.

Culture, Power, Population, Gold, Groups, Clans, Tribes, Towns, Cities, Metropolises, Nations, etc..., basically stem from Mankind's Survival Instincts, "Fight or Flight"... It All has to do with Humans striving to gain Domination for reasons of Control and Surviving as they want.

Possibilities :dunno:

Cultural Evolution
Quest for Power
A Time of Domination
Struggle to Power
Mankind - World Domination
Click to expand...

BaTTleBOtfan54 said:
How about the name- Epic History?
Click to expand...
That's not half bad. Do we lose points for not using Epic's Unreal engine? :D
 
Without reading the thread except for the OP, I nominate:

POLIS
 
(you can also do ‘politeia’, or ‘poleis’, or something, but I wanted that to stand on its own)

hi Kyriakos! Demos and Gaia could be special modes!
 
some more seed words:

dominance
prosperity
society
advancement
reigns of power
magnum opus (humanity's and ours)

Also, another little-c civilization themed game project I was involved in ended their blurb with "This is the great pastime and challenge of mankind: Civilization." which I always thought was a great way to describe it. Maybe some kind of play on what civilization means, rather than a synonym for it.
 
I was musing on the "Stone Age to Space Age" suggestion, and I like it, but it's kinda long as a title (could be a good tag-line though).

So my first idea to simpify that was "Flint & Steel" (or "Flint to Steel", but that doesn't have as nice a ring to it).

But I just thought of another, which is closer to the spirit of the original, and a little more amusing (to me, anyway): "Rocks to Rockets"
 
I like Reins of Power (or reigns), Magnum Opus, and Rocks to Rockets (although I'm undecided on whether I like it more than Stone Age to Space Age).

Perhaps we should try to organize a poll around names for Carthage? One obvious challenge is there are more name suggestions than people suggesting names... but I'm sure someone can concoct a formula to wrangle all the suggestions into a poll.
 
Quintillus said:
I like Reins of Power (or reigns), Magnum Opus, and Rocks to Rockets (although I'm undecided on whether I like it more than Stone Age to Space Age).

Perhaps we should try to organize a poll around names for Carthage? One obvious challenge is there are more name suggestions than people suggesting names... but I'm sure someone can concoct a formula to wrangle all the suggestions into a poll.
Click to expand...

Maybe just go with the historical: "Cathargo."
 
Ozymandias said:
Maybe just go with the historical: "Cathargo."
Click to expand...
I believe I was thinking of having a poll around the overall project name (the long-term C7 replacement), with the timing around the Carthage released. Not my best-worded post ever. "Carthago" definitely would make the most sense for this milestone.

---

On the geologic epic names, I had to look those up, which makes me concerned they'd be too technical for most of the audience. If we were building a Sim Earth successor, it might be appropriate? The only epoch that comes to mind as possibly obvious/human-related enough is Anthropocene, which I read is not actually an official epoch yet.

Seven Millennia I like a bit more. It nicely encapsulates the timespan. But which one is the seventh millennium? 5000 BC - 4000 BC? Or 2000 AD - 3000 AD? The latter would probably push the scope too far into sci-fi/space travel, and we already have enough scope. 4000 BC is (AFAIK) the start date in all the Civ games, quite possibly due to the traditional Biblical estimates of the age of the Earth, although also perhaps due to it being often difficult to trace history back much beyond that with any accuracy. But we probably know more now than we did in 2000. Maybe Six Millenia would work better? We also don't have to imitate Civ in the "default C7 ruleset" in this regard, necessarily. 3000 BC could work at the start time, potentially, maybe Five Millenia? Only really important to figure out if we got the "Millenia" name route, but I like the general direction of that suggestion.
 
*AHEM* ( :D ) I did rather like, "From The Stoned Stone Age To The Space Age."

The Bronze Age (Bronze is an alloy of Copper and Tin) began in various parts of the world, between 3300 BC and 1200 BCE. Good atheist that I am, I'd never given any thought to the suddenly ... unpleasant ... ideas about the age of the Earth, for the 4,000 BCE Civ starting dates, being the 6,000 years derived from Genesis 1 ( :run: )

I've found it to be extremely difficult to work out starting dates, for both playable and realistic-starting-dates for global mods - For example, everyone wants Rome, yes? - But, for Rome to pop onto the map means starting no earlier than about 500 BCE, which gives just enough "wiggle room" to plaster enough other fun Civs around the world to make it a tenable game.

Now, back to the Bronze Age: that Bronze is one of the earliest Techs in Civ is as fakely accommodating as can be, pushing the global start of the Bronze Age back, up to 1,000 years. My personal opinion has become that 2000 BCE is probably the best, overall, "faking it", game play enjoyment, starting date. Bronze can remain an early Tech, with some Civs starting with it.

Also, the Civ 3 Fourth Era, well, sucks. The military Units and progressions are FUBAR; SETI and a Cure For Cancer are jokes, and heading off to Alpha Centauri any time soon is, um, "unlikely."

Ergo, without getting too Sci-Fi, I'd go for ca. 2000 BCE to 2200 CE as a "sweet spot," with the game ending right before completely apocalyptic climate collapse - or, perhaps, "Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri" victory being replaced by an "Elon Musk Mars" victory.

- Thoughts?
 
Quintillus said:
Seven Millennia I like a bit more. It nicely encapsulates the timespan. But which one is the seventh millennium? 5000 BC - 4000 BC? Or 2000 AD - 3000 AD? The latter would probably push the scope too far into sci-fi/space travel, and we already have enough scope. 4000 BC is (AFAIK) the start date in all the Civ games, quite possibly due to the traditional Biblical estimates of the age of the Earth, although also perhaps due to it being often difficult to trace history back much beyond that with any accuracy. But we probably know more now than we did in 2000. Maybe Six Millenia would work better? We also don't have to imitate Civ in the "default C7 ruleset" in this regard, necessarily. 3000 BC could work at the start time, potentially, maybe Five Millenia? Only really important to figure out if we got the "Millenia" name route, but I like the general direction of that suggestion.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I was thinking 4000 BGC - 3000 GC, alluding to the timespan in Call To Power, which was the first civ game I was ever exposed to. One thing I've always felt has been missing from the mainline civ games, was the ability to see a hyperfuturistic civilization, while knowing about its vast & rich sociocultural legacy I've built up ever since humans transitioned from hunting-gathering to sedentary living; having the science victory just be "travel to another planet" has always felt a bit weaksauce to me, in my opinion. As for what to replace that science victory with, may I suggest building a Dyson Swarm?
 
Last edited:
BackseatTyrant said:
Yeah, I was thinking 4000 BGC - 3000 GC, alluding to the timespan in Call To Power, which was the first civ game I was ever exposed to. One thing I've always felt has been missing from the mainline civ games, was the ability to see a hyperfuturistic civilization, while knowing about its vast & rich sociocultural legacy I've built up ever since humans transitioned from hunting-gathering to sedentary living; having the science victory just be "travel to another planet" has always felt a bit weaksauce to me, in my opinion. As for what to replace that science victory with, may I suggest building a Dyson Swarm?
Click to expand...
I'm curious about "BGC/GC." In US academia, "CE/BCE" - "Common Era / Before The Common Era" are the norms.
 
The creation link had occurred to me but I just figured it was a nice round number near the earliest reliable records of civilizations. As far as the time span, if the idea is to use Civ3 as a baseline then it wouldn't seem prudent to incorporate a different one into the identity of the game. Though I myself have taken a lot of inspiration from Call to Power (4000 BC - 3000 AD), and was thinking about how to push back the end game.

Ozymandias said:
For example, everyone wants Rome, yes?
Click to expand...
Everyone wants America, no? :mischief:

But we digress....

FWIW I think my favorites so far are "One Turn Deserves Another", "Statecraft", "Epic History", and my surely terrible "Threemake". I do really like the "polis" theme, but that's already a... populous? space in gaming.
 
Ozymandias said:
I'm curious about "BGC/GC." In US academia, "CE/BCE" - "Common Era / Before The Common Era" are the norms.
Click to expand...
GC means 'Gregorian Calendar'; I chose that because that's the description I personally find to be the most accurate.
 
Basically, CE (which stands for Common Era) can be misinterpreted to mean Christian Era. The latter of course implies that the "Western world" (a very vague concept in and of itself; shifts wildly according to who you ask) is fundamentally Christian, that other religions aren't welcome here, but I'd honestly argue the former and correct interpretation sort of implies the same thing. So I think say Gregorian Calendar is not only a precise definition (it defines which year it is according to the Gregorian calendar), it's also the least controversial one since it doesn't flat out state "this is the way of doing things"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom