CIVILIZATIONS (ver2.1): hosted by LordStone1

[Ekmek]

I have to agree with my fellow historian Diodorus.

I like his civ creation idea (but to add to it instead of shield use flags or standards and have their size be a lot larger than in civ2 so you can add some nice details).

I agree with his barbarian idea, but even the barbarians should be more than one type of barbarian (the reason for barbarian migrations was actually fighting among barbarians, or so it is hypothesized). And they should rely a lot on the way nomadic economies worked (atleast in east asia) by raids or hiring themselves out as mercenaries or (like Ancient Rome) try to join your empire but settling in the borders, but causing social turmoil (an eventually setting up feudal states supposedly modeled on Rome). In all barbarians, were only barbaric because that is the way the Romans (and before them the Greeks) saw them because they had a different culture. The barbarians were a nomadic civilization not an agrarian/city based one like Rome/Greece.

------------------
"All great things must first wear terrifying and monstrous masks in order to inscribe themselves on the hearts of humanity."
- Nietzche

[FinnishGuy]

mhistbuff, E, Diodorus:

Great ideas about barbarians and split-off civs!

Hmmm, perhaps if a city has much unhappiness, there is a chance that part of the city's population will leave and found a new colony far away from your homeland cities. The whole process would be automated, outside player's control (except modifying unhappiness of course). There could be a certain "Colonization" technology that must be first researched (or maybe finding a new unsettled continent could enable it). The distant colony would still be part of your civilization. It would produce loads of money (colonial trade), but would also have high unhappiness (a representative government could reduce/eliminate the extra unhappiness). If a colony falls to disorder even for one turn, there's a considerable chance it will declare independence and other nearby colonies might then join it to found a new civilization (maybe a 20-30 turn period before this is allowed). Some later technology ("Nation State"? Industrialization?) could then end the colonial era, i.e. no more colony formation allowed and remaining colonies join your civ as normal cities.

Also there should be real barbarian hordes in the game. I mean REAL hordes that are a threat even to a well establisehd and defended civ. Civ2's barbarians are just a nuisance at best/worst even if you select the max barbarian level.

BTW, the original meaning of the word "barbarian" is "a person who does not speak Greek".

[Ekmek]

Finnishguy,

I like the colonization idea, having people flee like immigrants would be cool (if anything have the unhappy people after 2 or 3 turns produce a "barbarian" settler, that the barbarian AI knows how to use) then they can settle elsewhere or add to another civilization city's population.

I think if you set up a colon, colonial trade should represent Mercantilism and colonial economies (where raw resources were exported to the mother country and processed then sold back to the colonials) trade should represent resources and be ependable like Age of Empires. There should be atleast two types of trading commodities, resources (like wood, food, stone, bronze/iron, uranium, etc stuff to make units) and then commercial/luxury goods (like silk, wool, etc stuff you sell for profit).

------------------
"All great things must first wear terrifying and monstrous masks in order to inscribe themselves on the hearts of humanity."
- Nietzche

[Diodorus Sicilus]

Sorry about the double post, everyone - sometimes even my Magniloquent, Technologically Godlike Macintosh goes wormy on me...
Variety in Barbarians comes both from giving them a range of attitudes and interactions (trade, info exchange, etc) but also some Diplomatic exchange as well. This, I freely admit, is stolen wholesame from BoF's Minor Races gig, but is also another historical goodie: you can buy off barbarians into not attacking you, joining you, attacking someone else, etc. Trading a lot with them would make them like you more (or, occasionally, lust after what you've got and raid you if you don't keep some military force around to Overawe the Natives).
Each Barbarian group could be given a name/title in the game just as other civs are. Just to show off a little, here's a list of 'barbarians' from the Middle East - Europe area through about 1450AD that the computer could 'cull from' for Barbarian Names:
Ideally, they’d be named as tribes or groups: names include (3000BC through 1450AD):
Guti, Kassites, Amorites, Cimmerians, Ligurians, Hurrians, Thracians, Illyrians, Phrygians, Sakae,, Scythians, Nubians, Sarmatians, Numidians, Bactrians, Parthians, Yue-Chi, Hsung-Nu, Alans, Roxoloni, Surens, Kushans, Visigoths, Ostrogoths, Vandals, Gepids, Marcomanni, Franks, Burgundians, Bavaroi, Alemanni, Jutes, Angles, Saxons, Avars, Bulgars, Khazaks, Patzinals, Magyars, Ghuzz, Seljuks, Cumans, Sarbadars, Uzbeks, Circassians.
Note that a heck of a lot of these contributed to building what, in the game, are civilizations: Franks into French, Angles and Saxons into English, etc...

[Jon Miller]

hello all

I agree to what you are saying about barbarrians and think that there should be much more options to deal with them, including hiring them as mercenaries. In fact you can read my ideas (I don't need to repeat do I) that I posted like a week ago in the radical thread (I think, it may have been the other thread)

hopefully barbarrians will be much different in CIV3

I actually have had the idea for more nomadic civs, it could be workable with the concept of pop going into forming military units and I may have written a little about it in one of those previous posts, anyway cities could be remade by units coming together making movable, nomadic population

Jon Miller

[Zakalwe]

This barbarian-minor civ thing is getting very interesting.

One suggestion: When a barbarian force occupies a civilisation's (capital) city, maybe it could result in a new civilisation based on the original, but different in some aspects (Social Engineering etc.)

Here's an example: A fragmented civ, based on city-states is conquered by barbarians from the north, which then merges with the civ and goes on to conquer half of the known world in a few turns. Then the new empire collapses and splits into several successor states. Or is this too unhistorical?

About civs splitting: I think that in the early part of the game this could be tied to lines of communication, and military threat from other civilisations. If a city is far away and nearer to other civs than your own, it might either join the other civ (if you don't have enough military presence nearby), or decide to have a go at it alone (e.g. Palmyra in late 3rd century)

Later, Nationalism should really open the can of worms. In my opinion, it would have to be a 'gateway' tech for many other advances, such as consription (levee en masse), but also carry a heavy burden. All those cities your civ captured during the last few centuries should be much harder to control, and the chances of them slipping off to form their own states should be increased.

Zakalwe

------------------
"Ambitions that fall sort of their aim have all along helped produce excellent histories" - Ernst Breisach, Historiography

[LordStone1]

I'll be gone for 2 weeks now, so have fun!

[FinnishGuy]

I agree with the comment about Nationalism being a gateway tech.

BTW, I proposed "the Great Revolution" WoW in WONDERS thread (civs can't switch to modern republic/democracy before it has been built, gives half military unit costs for 20 turns to the civ that builds it, ...). It could well be linked to Nationalism tech advance.

But I don't think a city you conquered centuries ago could decide to break off after you discover Nationalism. Those people more probably feel they are a part of your nation after so many years of cultural and ideological influence. But perhaps a city conquered less than 100 years ago could try to split off.

[Zakalwe]

Finnishguy,

The "Great Revolution" wonder sounds like a good idea. Combined with nationalism, it would be a sort of a turning point in the game - ushering in the new era of nation-states and increased unrest.

I do disagree on the 100 year limit for cities (nations) splitting from your civ as a result of nationalism. Many of the countries, brought about by the rise of nationalism had been parts of empires for hundreds of years. Examples include Ireland and the Balkan states.

Zakalwe

------------------
"Ambitions that fall sort of their aim have all along helped produce excellent histories" - Ernst Breisach, Historiography

[FinnishGuy]

Zakalwe,

(100 year limit) Hmmm... OK... But I still think at least the probability to split off should decrease the longer you have owned the conquered city.

What if secession would be triggered by the city's original civilization discovering Nationalism, not by you? It's about _their_ nationalistic identity after all. OK, there's a problem if you have taken over an entire enemy civilization (so how could they research Nationalism). Perhaps there could be a lesser effect even by your own nationalism.

I took the liberty of suggesting "Nationalism" advance in the TECHNOLOGY thread. Of course I gave you credit there, Zakalwe.
<font size=1 face=Arial color=444444>[This message has been edited by FinnishGuy (edited July 14, 1999).]</font>

[mhistbuff]

I like the idea of nationalism and it affecting conquered cities. However, the discovery of nationalism in your civ should have an affect as well as the discovery by the civ the cities once belonged to. Nationalism in your civ would turn your subject against foreigners in you civ, including those in captured cities, perhaps resulting in racist acts of terrorism (lynchings and stuff), which cause unrest or even the mass migration of inhabitants from those cities.

[Mo]

Nationalism should also reduce the cost of infantry units. This bonus should increase if one or more of your cities are under attack since the people will be more willing to die for there country.

I think Civs should be "related". For example, if the British were to schism, it might make, say, the Chinese. Wouldn't it be better if it created the Americans? Here's my idea...

1.Aztecs-Teotihuacans-Olmec
2.Inca-Tiahuacanos-Moche
3.English-Americans-Canadians
4.Russians-Polish-Mongols
5.Greeks-Romans-Minoans
6.Egyptians-Assyrians-Babylonians
7.French-German-Spanish
8.Sioux-Iroqoius-Navaho
9.Chinese-Japanese-Korean
10.Indians-Siamese-Khmer

All tribes in a set should have similar (but not the same) colors. For example, the Frech could be sky-blue, the Germans ocean-blue, and the Spanish dark blue. Only one of each set would be in each game (meaning, of course, a possible 10-civ game), and thus if you play on the Earth map, it won't be TOO crowded up in Europe... When a civ schisms, or rebels in any other new way FIRAXIS decides on, it will go to another civ in its group.

[Harel]

I don't know if everyone suggested it allredy, but I would like to suggest a new civ:
The Mahika. The Mahika was the civ de-facto when Kortez invaded south-america. It was a consertive-thinking empire that derives from the remains of the Aztec, and used most of thier religoun espects and technology.

[Iceman88888888]

This idea will mean having a extreamly large map but hay, how hard can that be?

Have about 7- Super Powers- These are the movers and shakers of the world, These civs are very powerfull and respected
Have 20-30 Major Powers- All the other 1st world countrys, these powers are still important but not has much as the super powers.
Then Have 70-80 Minor Civs, Like 2nd and 3rd world countrys which have 1-2 and at the max 4 citys. These countrys are unimportant and are affiliated (What a cool word, sooo long [JK] ) with the super/major powers around them which have similar Political views etc.
Countrys can be constantly skipping between super, major and minor and may even be changing names.
Like Rome- Went from Minor Power during the time of Alex the Great, Went to major around 275bc when alex's kingdom split into Pltomec Empire, Secuild Empire, Greece and Macedonia and latter became a super power when it over took alot of the mediteranian.
I might post later about this if its a good idea

[itokugawa]

Many great ideas indeed. I also believe that there should be much more than 7 Civs in Civ3. Also some dynamic way for creating new civs.
My opinion for some of them:
1. Nomadic Civs: They can build only units and they do not develop science (but they can steal, exchange etc.). Any civilisation can create nomads by some special nomadic units. When such a unit is created in a city, the number of citizens is reduced by 1. Nomadic unit does not require support and it always uses the square it occupies. By this way it can produce other nomadic (and only) units. Barbarians will act as nomads.

2.Barbarian Civs: Completely agree. When barbarians capture a city they form their civilisation. (Ofcource they change colour).

3.Schism: It can happen at any time. Reasons for that: i)Corruption, ii)Unhappiness, iii)Ignorance by the leader. For example if I buy libraries etc. for one city and another city builds only units, citizens become furious and they may revolt. This point means that I have the right in democracy to declare marshial law in some cities (but citizens will become VERY furious for long time after the end of this period), iv)As n master of Orion: Captured cities can revolt at any time.


------------------

[Mo]

I think the units nomadic civs can produce should be limited to infantry and mounted so no vehicles. In the begining they should produce their own weapons but later in the game they will have to steal buy plunder trade for their weapons since they are going to be more sophisticated.

[jof]

I would like to "marry a cool concept from history" {Nomadic Civilizations} "with a thought out game effect" :
When a player starts from the very beginning (6000BC?), he gets one nomad unit (0a, 1d, 1m, 2h, 1f). Nomads are generated by splitting 1 unit into 2 units and removed by founding a city with them or adding to a city 1 population point (like settlers). While exploring the neighbourhood they live off the land and need no food or shield support.

Like a walking city a nomad unit gathers food&shield&trade from the square it is currently on (occasionally preventing a local city to use this square . It must move every turn or will get _no_ resources (e.g. fortified in emergency). Nomads can only produce units; they cannot produce city improvements or wonders and can't build roads, irrigation or mines.

Nomads may gain advances through the collection of trade points, just like regular cities. Once the "farming&settling" advance is acquired, they may build cities. A nomad unit has a name (reference for the supported units) and a food & production box, which are displayed, when it becomes the active unit.

With the appropriate civilization advance a nomad unit can build units (warriors, horsemen, settlers etc.) by emptying a full production box. 1 unit per nomad is free of support in despotism (&monarchy?). Further units are supported from the nomads production box with 1 shield per turn (or 1 food, if the prod. box is empty (and disbanded, if the foodbox is empty too)). Settlers need 1 shield & 1 food support.

When its food box becomes full, a nomad unit splits in 2 nomad units with empty food boxes, dividing the content of the production box as well as supported units. To provide a mechanism towards building cities (and getting civilised!? the food box is enlarged on every split (e.g. 10, 20, 30, 50 etc. food). This numbers should balance the
opposing strategies:
(chinese) Perfectionist, explore neighbourhood for a good city location, develop asap the advance "farming&settling", build city, granary, phalanx etc.
(mongolian) Expansionist, explore continent for goodie huts & weak civs, develop asap horseback riding, wheel etc., conquer cities and/or plunder their irrigated & mined squares with nomads.

[With the foodbox-sizes 10, 10, 20, 30, 50, 80, 130.. & approx. 1.5 food per turn gathered by a nomad unit, it would need 7, 7, 13, 20, 33, 53, 87.. turns to fill them. I.e. during the first 7, 13, 27, 47, 80, 133, 220.. turns there would be 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64.. nomads (of course if not killed or used for cities).]

Questions:
They're really weak and probably can't survive a heavy battle (they can fortify, but that would prevent them from gathering food). Should zones of control apply to nomads? Or should they support 2 units for free? Should this number depent on the form of government?

Shall nomads count towards unhappiness (riot factor)?
Can a city produce a nomad unit (kind of supply crawler unit)? How about
initial foodbox-size? Number of shields for nomad unit?
And can a nomad unit _produce_ a nomad?

[itokugawa]

I believe that nomadic units should be able to produce other nomadic units. The new nomadic units are free of support and function as the parent nomadic units.

A nomadic unit requires only 1 food (and no production) taken by the square it occupies with 2 modifications:
a)The food production of the square is only 50% of the normal production in monarchy (rounded up so plains, irrigated desert and grassland give 1 whereas irrigated grassland gives 2).
b)2 nomads in the same square can use all the available food of that square and divide it betwwen them.

Trade and production always as in despotism.
A nomadic unit cannot produce another when it has enough food but when it produses it with shields. Every nomad has its "granary" for i.e. crossing a desert, but it cannot have more than i.e 20 food units. Production as in a city.

Since they will have no factories, libraries, harbours etc. nomads will become weak at later times. Also a nomad can be bribed easily, can be disbanded, join a city, build a new city but not improve terrain.

In theory there can be even armor nomads if the civ has the necessary advances (Once I have seen barbarian armor when I was using cheat mode and barbarian map).


------------------

[Francis]

I'd like to not only give civs different leaders, but, as has been said, make them act differently. Germany from 1939-45 was a feared and dangerous military power. Germany from 1946 to Kosovo was a damp, anxious, weak military power with a pretty good economy. Just to name one example. In fact, maybe the names of the leaders should NOT reflect what type of civ they are, nor should the diplo screen give away exactly what their chracteristics are. It would be more challenging if you had to figure out whether a civ was agressive or not, instead of being told.

I'd like to see AIs suffer or benefit from teh consequences of their actions. I'd like an "aggressive perfectionist" AI to be in Democracy to better attain its perfect. goals, but I'd like to see its cities in revolt when it sends out its aggressive armies.

I'd like to see a fundamentalist perfectionist government somewhere with a huge army that just sits at home for defense. Attack them at your peril, especially when they start buying their way into the space race and threaten to win the game.

I'd like to to see the AI once in a while do the human trick of expand, expand, expand. Or flood me with knights, because for a fantastic change they've actually researched monotheism.

Can't all these be achieved by providing a better mechanism for running the civs? I've heard that civ attributes are all controlled by 3 +1/-1 flags. Doesn't that seem way too simple?

As for more civ possibilities, I'm all for 'em. It doesn't take up that much room, and as for research, I would think that an intern spending an afternoon with the Brittanica could garner all the information faxis needs on cities and leaders.

[Cartagia the Great]

One diplomacy option i would really enjoy having was the ability to carve up an opposing nation. I know many people have been clamoring for the ability to set boarders at the end of a war, sio you coudl trade cities and the like with the loser. I'm completely for this, in fact I was one of the first clammorers

However, that is not exactly what I mean for this. I also believe it would be nice to be able to create new nations out of another older nation. This hs happened time and time again through out human history, and I believe it should be represented in this game.

How it should work would be:

The Russians and the Wisconsinites(I always add them..so sue me :P) have fought a large, expensive war, with ended up with the Russians being defeated. AS the war neared an end the Russians began to ask for negations. This would be done in the diplomacy screen, much the way askign for a peace treaty is done now.

Finally the Wisconsinites accept the idea for Negoations with the Russians. In negoations there would be differant catagoires listed such as:

Economics
Ethnic
Territory
Politicle

The Wisconsinites would then set each as they wished it to be for the final peace treaty. In Economics they would choose how much, if any, money is given to their nation.

Ethnic would be an option that would have the winning civilization demand that all peopulation of a certian ethnic group be sent into their territory, percecuted and such things.

Politicle would be the winning party demanding certian things on thel ose,r such as the type of government to have, who to ally to or soem other iinsidiouse things to hurt the nation(you could evne rename it if you wished to)

And finally ,the most important, territorial. Territorial is where you would dicker over the trading of citiesd and the like. Not only tha,t but I believe that one should be able to create new nations in this screen.

The winning faction would click on the "New Nation" option and then click the cities that should belong to it. They would also choose if this would have been an already existing civilization (like recreating China after the Russians conquered it). For this it would ahve to have a good deal of popualtion in the new nation that WAS ethnic Chinese. or it could be an entirly new nation such as the: The Frolini. This would not have to have the ethniticity in it, but would be, by deffinition, not very stable.

You would also be able to set up thel eaders name, it's policy and other types of things to name it a real civilization.

Now, you are most likly asking why one would want to do this. After all, if you can beat the civilization in war, why not just annex all you can, and destroy them for ever. Well there are a few good reasons for this.

1)In later stages of the game completely annexing another civilization would be looked down upon by other civilizations, and it could hurt your reputation.

2)you just BARELY won, and the other nation is still pwoerful. This slicing up of it's land would create buffer states between your nation and the other, hopefully keeping you both safe

3)you want to punish the other nation, but not to badly, because you fear that if ti's to badly injured a third party will destroy it. That coupled with the fact that your not strong enough to hold the outside territory would seem to make you want to carve them up a bit.

On another not,e I also believe it would be nice for allies(if two or more people are at war against another alliance) to be able to take part in the negotiations. Now it would also be possible for the other nation to reject your treaty and negate naother, but ,if you did not like it, you culd threaten with a retunr to war. Or, if you've captured their capital, you can insist on nearly any treat you want(muhc like in WW2)

Just a few of my ideas. Enjoy

[Cartagia the Great]

Well, actually, I would rather LIKE the idea of aliens, coming in the later stages of the game. AS you said they could be turned off, and would be rare, but if they arrived it could be in several differant ways. They could be benevolent and give you technology and other things in order to allow your civilization to prosper. they could try to manipulate differantn atiosn ofr thier own purposes(Shadows and Vorlon like) Or they could try to invade and conquer the planet aka Harry Turtledove's World War series(of course if it was the Lizards humans owuld ahve a good chance of winning :P)

[jof]

Cartagia: As I understand it, Firaxis will design the Trilogie "Sweep of time", consisting of CIV3, SMAC2 and a completely new game by Sid Meier. It will be possible to take the result of CIV (spaceship to alpha centauri) to SMAC, and that result (transcendence) to the new game. As SMAC (with its extension "alien crossfire") contains aliens and the new game (I see it as kind of galactic civilization with klingons, romulans etc.) probably will contain aliens I see no need for aliens in the historical part of the trilogie .

Itokugawa: You write, the NOMADIC CIVS (without factories, libraries ...) will become weak in later times. That's right, but why shall they not build cities to counter this effect? Ok, they will no longer be pure nomadic civs. But what shall they do with conquered cities? In my opinion their strenght could be the ability to conquer early weak civs based on cities and benefit from the mix later.
About one thing I'm not sure: In my proposal I suggested one new special unit, the nomad unit (all other units remaining the same). Do you propose the nomadic effect as quality of the existing units? For example nomadic archers, nomadic legions, nomadic phalanxes? Please explain your ideas in more detail.

Diodorus Sicilus: Are you still around? I think you can provide good ideas towards a successfull nomadic suggestion.

[itokugawa]

Nomads can have any weapons if they have the necessary knowledge so there should be many nomadic units. Probably only 1 available each time (i.e. nomad warrior becomes obsolete by nomad archer, nomad archer by nomad musceteer etc.).

I said that nomad units should be able to found cities. When capture a city they do not destroy it.

There are also some other points I haven't thought about before:

1)Barbarians: they should behave like nomads. They can even build cities and become civilized. There should be many barbarian tribes but barbarians of the same tribe should land near each other. If you do not destroy them soon they will become stronger (because they act as nomads). Cooperation with barbarians is allowed.

2)Units should not be repaired automatically but only with some cost in shields (i.e. in city production use the option "repair unit"). Nomads can be repaired by themselves with the shields they produce.

3)A nomad unit should require no support but the population of the city is reduced by 1.
So what the city losses: 1 square from its radius.
What the player gains: 1 square of exploitation (the square nomad occupies).

It is not advisable for a city with improvements or when you want to terraform. But at the start of the game you rather want to expand and your cities have not improvements. So it is in agreement with history: Nomads are not competitive for long time.

[Mo]

In modern times the equivalent of a nomad should be the partisans. They are self supporting but when they are near a friendly city they can recieve extra support from them.

[Iceman88888888]

What about this?
In the original civ 2 WW2 scenario, if you played as allies and germany overtook france and then you retook it you kept in... Why not if you go to war to help a civ and win you can give them back their citys... and keep the persons you attacked. Later in the game you could give back the origonal countrys citys and get lots of cash and a good diplomatic alliance. The ideas are limitless

[Mo]

This also being disscused in the diplomacy thread.

[Shining1]

Just as a suggestion:

You can have both options for Civs in CivIII. Firstly, you can include the main group of superpowers as the default civs for the game, similar to the list of Civs in CivII. With Brian as a History graduate, and based on CivII experience, this should make for a fairly comprehensive list. One proviso: each country gets listed once. So you don't get the Vikings AND the Swedes, just the vikings.

Secondly, have a custom list of civilisations that reads from a seperate game file and can include however many civs the player wants. All the main players can be here, as well as a list of all the others.

Include with this an IN GAME means to create a new civ and save it to this file/directory (however much data - greetings, pic files, etc) is saved for each civ), for future reference.


My other suggestion is that Civs be done in a fairly similar form to SMAC civs, but with a greater degree of customisability. For instance, being able to link each civ to a pic file that includes a basic settler unit and unique city images would be a great thing, especially for scenario editors. Naturally, you don't need a single file for each and every civ in the game, just a link to a generic file for that group (e.g European, Asian, etc).

With the custom civ files system, both the civ and it's pic files would slot conviently into a seperate directory.

[jof]

LordStone1: I would like to add the following to my suggestion from August 03, just behind "regular cities.": [Every civ gets 1 tradepoint per turn for free (to lessen the advantage for starting with the NOMAD-UNIT near river squares).]

Itokugawa: You have nothing written about the production costs of nomadic units - so I asume, you propose for cost: 1 population-point & as many shields as their non-nomadic pendants?
The approach to implement nomadic elements not with a single _nomad unit_, but with nomadic warriors, nomadic phalanxes, nomadic armor etc. (i.e. as optional _nomadic quality_ of regular units) changes gameplay a lot more and may unbalance the whole gamesystem:
For founding cities I wouldn't produce settlers any more. In the beginning nomadic warriors are cheaper & after gunpowder there are lots of "obsolet" nomadic phalanxes & nomadic pikemen.
As the nomadic units need no shield support (and cause no "unhappiness from home" in republic?!) regular non-nomadic units would only be used as garrisons. For exploring and/or advancing units this nomadic qualities and the effortless self-reproduction would be very useful.
Attacks may move from quick, surprising actions over good infrastructure towards slow movements, trying to duplicate the nomadic units just before attack.
Producing nomadic warriors in cities, duplicating them a couple of times as nomadic units and adding them back to cities would lead to quicker city growth than regular.

[Stefu]

Gosh, NotLikeTea, I didn't know you were a soc.history.what-if poster. I'm soc.history.what-if lurker...

Hmm. Maybe if Germany tries to attack Britain in Earth map British should get powerful Alison Brooks unit...

Anyway, make a random event where bunch of time travellers come to sell AK-47 to some country.