[WIP] Project Civ: A Quality-Oriented Civ Pack

[Guandao]

Didn't stop them from including the Huns, when we have next to no info concerning the Hunnic language.

Indus Valley Language affinity is controversial especially in South Asia between Indo-Aryan speakers (those who believe IE languages are indigenous to the Indian subcontinent) and Dravidian speakers (Tamil, Kannada, Telugu, etc), so putting them in seems unlikely. As for Minoans, if its an ancient form of Cretan Greek, then its fine with me. However, I rather not put civs whose languages are little known over those whose languages are known.

 

[Irkalla]

Indus Valley Language affinity is controversial especially in South Asia between Indo-Aryan speakers (those who believe IE languages are indigenous to the Indian subcontinent) and Dravidian speakers (Tamil, Kannada, Telugu, etc), so putting them in seems unlikely. As for Minoans, if its an ancient form of Cretan Greek, then its fine with me. However, I rather not put civs whose languages are little known over those whose languages are known.

It's honestly a lot better than the people that say Sumerian could be a Uralic language :V

Though, I think it can be said that out of the modern languages, the closest one in terms of syntax and grammar to Sumerian might be Hungarian, a Uralic language.

And don't get me started on the Basque nuts.

 

[Guandao]

I had an old professor of biblical archeology claim that Sumerian was Indo-European. He also claimed that Native Americans had no language (implying that writing=language).

 

[Guandao]

Don't forget Elamite. Some link it to Dravidian.

 

[Leugi]

He also claimed that Native Americans had no language (implying that writing=language).

Yeah, that's terrible... Specially because some Native Americans did develop pictograms and graphical ways of communication. But it is truly annoying when people can't value cultures because of discrimination. Hell, the true Quipus were probably an incredibly complex way of communication, and we can't know all its code because it was burned out by the Spanish Inquisition on the colonies.

 

[Irkalla]

Status update on the Sumerians: I spent today chasing down an issue with the UA regarding conquering cities. I finally solved it around sundown, and am now working on Text. After the text is done, I just have to get some art assets into the game.

Hopefully, we're looking at release late tomorrow.

I had an old professor of biblical archeology claim that Sumerian was Indo-European. He also claimed that Native Americans had no language (implying that writing=language).

Lucky he didn't have me as a student, I'd have seen him swing for it I could understand Uralic, but IE? FFS.

He was probably more biblical than archaeological if you catch my drift.

 

[turingmachine]

Indus Valley Language affinity is controversial especially in South Asia between Indo-Aryan speakers (those who believe IE languages are indigenous to the Indian subcontinent) and Dravidian speakers (Tamil, Kannada, Telugu, etc), so putting them in seems unlikely. As for Minoans, if its an ancient form of Cretan Greek, then its fine with me. However, I rather not put civs whose languages are little known over those whose languages are known.

It's not so much controversial as there's a bunch of nationalistic nuts that don't want to accept common sense and basic linguistics. It's virtually impossible for the Harappan language to be Indo-European, and there's not one respected linguist that would honestly claim the Harappan language is related to Indo-European. Not that the Harappan language is necessarily related to Dravidian, but at least that's in the realm of possibility.

Besides, the having leaders that speak their own language thing was a gimmick that has no effect on gameplay. I'd rather they not base their decisions on who to include on whose language we know best. My point about Hunnic stands. It was a civ who we know absolutely nothing about their native language, except maybe 1 or 2 proper names. You said adding those type of civs was impossible for the developers, yet they still added them.

 

[Guandao]

It's not so much controversial as there's a bunch of nationalistic nuts that don't want to accept common sense and basic linguistics. It's virtually impossible for the Harappan language to be Indo-European, and there's not one respected linguist that would honestly claim the Harappan language is related to Indo-European. Not that the Harappan language is necessarily related to Dravidian, but at least that's in the realm of possibility.

Besides, the having leaders that speak their own language thing was a gimmick that has no effect on gameplay. I'd rather they not base their decisions on who to include on whose language we know best. My point about Hunnic stands. It was a civ who we know absolutely nothing about their native language, except maybe 1 or 2 proper names. You said adding those type of civs was impossible for the developers, yet they still added them.

For Attila, although we don't know his native language, we know his achievements. The achievements of the Minoans and Harappans are known only from archeology. What would they say in the intro? There are other civs I would rather have in the game then the Minoans or Indus Valley civilization (like Vietnam, Kongo, Khmer, Hungary and so on)

 

[Irkalla]

I'm pushing back release a little bit. I blame my unfamiliarity with handling certain files. Soonest it can come out is Tuesday, and if it's not out then then you're looking at perhaps the week following.

There are other civs I would rather have in the game then the Minoans or Indus Valley civilization (like Vietnam, Kongo, Khmer, Hungary and so on)

What would you guys think of a proper Confederate civ? It's an idea I've been kicking around. Hungary's been up there and so has Vietnam.

For the Confederacy and Vietnam, symbols are a major issue for me. For the confederacy, perhaps an equestrian; for vietnam, perhaps a dragon (but China!)

 

[sukritact]

I'd say no to a confed. civ; I'd rather see Canada or Australia before them...

 

[Pouakai]

I'd say no to a confed. civ; I'd rather see Canada or Australia before them...

As would I, and I really don't want to see a Canada or Australia civ

 

[AbsintheRed]

I'd say no to a confed. civ; I'd rather see Canada or Australia before them...

As would I, and I really don't want to see a Canada or Australia civ

Absolutely agreed.
A strong no to all 3 from me too.

 

[Krzowwh]

For Vietnam, it seems that the tortoise is a prominent animal symbolizing balance and peace. Also, if you want new suggestions, what do you think about Ryukyu or Wa'ab as economic/maritime powers?

 

[RaPiiD38]

Hi Justin I'm a libertarian too
Also the free unit for each citizen is a really nice trait.

I could look into making some 3d animated backgrounds for you but I've never messed with civ before and you would have to code it in?

Holy crap 36 pages I thought this was a brand new post well you've probably found a way to do backgrounds now so scratch that lol.

 

[Androrc the Orc]

What would you guys think of a proper Confederate civ? It's an idea I've been kicking around.

But "Confederacy" is a country title, rather than the country's territorial name (such as "United States" and "America"), and Civ seems to always use the country's territorial name for representing Civs. Maybe "Dixieland" would be a name that would fit well, and it would be possible then to represent Southern culture on eras other than the Civil War.

 

[sukritact]

I'd rather have the Confed. than "Dixieland".....

 

[Irkalla]

Hi Justin I'm a libertarian too
Also the free unit for each citizen is a really nice trait.

I could look into making some 3d animated backgrounds for you but I've never messed with civ before and you would have to code it in?

Holy crap 36 pages I thought this was a brand new post well you've probably found a way to do backgrounds now so scratch that lol.

Well, I've thought about changing their trait to less reflect national service and more reflect the Peloponnesian League. It should generally feel similar to the old trait, but its sources would be different and more suited to wide expansion in that it doesn't outright require tall expansion to be used correctly.

Leonidas is a nightmare to play against with his original trait.

 

[Irkalla]

So, who wants a testing release?

 

[turingmachine]

So, who wants a testing release?

I'm going to say the civ is a little OP at the moment. +2 Culture per city was good enough on its own for a trait (with France) prior to BNW, and its even stronger in BNW seeing how early policies are cheaper (plus no obsolete tech). Plus, free Pottery is always really strong as it allows you to rush the Great Library.

The Tourism bonuses also seem shoe-horned in. The Ziggurat is really good with +25% GP rate (especially since its an early building). I don't understand also giving it a later Tourism bonus. (It guess its thematic that Ziggurats today are tourist attractions, but you can make that argument about almost any civ's UB). The same for the tourism in the UA. I don't get it. Sumer doesn't really present itself as a tourism civ, if anything I would say give it a bonus to the archeology system instead.

Suggestions:

UU (fine as is)
UB (remove the tourism bonus, +25% bonus is really good by itself, especially as its an early building and would stack with the garden)
UA (remove the tourism bonus, I would also say the pottery bonus isn't needed, but otherwise just keep the culture and pottery bonus)

 

[Irkalla]

I'm going to say the civ is a little OP at the moment. +2 Culture per city was good enough on its own for a trait (with France) prior to BNW, and its even stronger in BNW seeing how early policies are cheaper (plus no obsolete tech). Plus, free Pottery is always really strong as it allows you to rush the Great Library.

The Tourism bonuses also seem shoe-horned in. The Ziggurat is really good with +25% GP rate (especially since its an early building). I don't understand also giving it a later Tourism bonus. (It guess its thematic that Ziggurats today are tourist attractions, but you can make that argument about almost any civ's UB). The same for the tourism in the UA. I don't get it. Sumer doesn't really present itself as a tourism civ, if anything I would say give it a bonus to the archeology system instead.

Suggestions:

UU (fine as is)
UB (remove the tourism bonus, +25% bonus is really good by itself, especially as its an early building and would stack with the garden)
UA (remove the tourism bonus, I would also say the pottery bonus isn't needed, but otherwise just keep the culture and pottery bonus)

Forget that the yield is named tourism. Remember that it represents cultural influence.

I wanted the Sumerians to have a running start at tourism, and keep them going at the culture victory with the great people rate, and later tourism on the Ziggurat. I also wanted a civ that could acquire policies early on. Lastly, I wanted a civ that could get their culture game up and running early. Early Pottery gives them this (that and they were known for early pottery, happy coincidence.) It also gives them the options of being an early seafarer or having an early science game up.

Since everything except the great person bonus is a flat number, this means that they really only mean anything in the early game. I dislike giving the Sumerians percentages, because that turns them into a late game power.

Above all else, I wanted a civ that can start their culture game a bit earlier than other civs. This is what I was aiming at.

I could live with cutting the late tourism bonus off of the ziggurat, possibly in addition to removing the great people bonus, however, I would want to give it some sort of tourism or culture boost. I think a good thing that would go along with early culture game would be to cut away the Great People bonus and the late tourism bonus, and give it a great musician slot with a GWOM slot. It makes sense, given that a vast majority of the music was hymnal in nature.


Just remember that I like to practice subtractive balance. Release something that's OP, and then whittle it down to size.