Apolyton ExtraCivs Pack: Existing Civs Round 2

Locutus · November 16, 2001, 18:53

Since a significant number of people in round 1 of this poll wanted to only change certain things about the existing civs, it seems only logical to have a second round of that poll in which the question is what parts of the existing civs exactly we should/shouldn't change. Hence this poll... Of course, those who don't want to change anything at all simply select the (first &) last option, those who think we should freely be 'allowed' to change everything (like yours truly

) will have to select all but the last option.

Clarification
First option: the multiple choice vote doesn't count the total number of votes casted (the number at the bottom is the sum of the number of votes for every option but since you can select up to 14 options it doesn't really mean anything). If this poll is to mean anything we need to know what *portion* of the voters did/didn't select certain options, not what *number* of voters.

CSA: Civilization Specific Ability (not Confederate States of America

). Currently Militaristic, Expansionist, Religious, Scientific, Industrious and Commercial; hopefully we'll be able to add 2 (or 3) more (Agricultural and Seafaring/Maritime) but it's still uncertain whether or not this is technically possible (changing CSAs when new ones can't be added could be useful to prevent that too many civs have the same combinations).

City lists: with 'fixing' I mean only do something about the mistakes made by Firaxis: one example I found is that the Russian city list has both the names Tbilisi and Tiflis on it. The first is the Russian name for the capital of Georgia (in the Caucasus, not in the Appalachian Mts.

), while the second is the English name for that city. I found several similar mistakes in the city lists already.
With 'changing' I mean actually making radical changes to the city lists: I personally have at least 20 cities to add to the Roman city list and a few that should perhaps be removed from it.

Edit: In case it wasn't obvious, the above examples are just that, examples (before anyone starts b*tching

). It remains to be seen whether or not these examples will actually be implemented...

ranskaldan · November 16, 2001, 19:14

hey, it seems that the code's been fixed so that the percentage now refers to the percentage of voters, not votes!

thanks very much to whoever did it!

Locutus · November 16, 2001, 19:35

Does that make me look silly or what?

ranskaldan · November 16, 2001, 20:35

nah... the code was changed after you posted this thread...

so, far from being silly, you get the credit for suggesting the change in code!

Locutus · November 17, 2001, 07:39

Is that so?

Hadn't noticed that...
It still looks a bit silly though

At this point, 7 people voted in total, 7 voted in favor of changing city lists and Great Leader lists, yet 1 person also voted for not changing anything at all

Someone has been checking those boxes a little bit too enthousiastically...

orange · November 17, 2001, 09:07

nah, I didn't vote for changing the city lists, but there are 7 votes total (same as the total number of voters according to the first checkbox...

) Seems someone just HAD to break the rules

Good thing there is that voter tally at the bottom

ranskaldan · November 27, 2001, 17:43

top

Gangerolf · November 28, 2001, 13:02

We should both 'fix' and 'change' the city lists.

I found some mistakes with city names when I played as the Germans, FE Heidelburg and Konigsberg should be Heidelberg and Königsberg. IMO we should change Cologne to Köln, Munich to München and Moscow to Moskva too, but i guess that's too much to ask for.

I think we should add more cities where that's possible. Some civs have very short city lists, and it's annoying to see the AI having cities like 'Paris', 'New Paris', 'Paris 2' etc.

ranskaldan · November 28, 2001, 16:23

Quote:

IMO we should change Cologne to Köln, Munich to München and Moscow to Moskva too, but i guess that's too much to ask for.

that is too much to ask for. Damascus would be Dimashq. Cairo would be El-Qahira. Copenhagen would be København. Athens would be Athinai. I won't be able to find my way around the map anymore.

Quote:

I think we should add more cities where that's possible. Some civs have very short city lists, and it's annoying to see the AI having cities like 'Paris', 'New Paris', 'Paris 2' etc.

definitely. i mean, the city list is just plain text, so it takes up almost zero amount of space. Why can't we have, oh, 50-80 city names per civ?

Gromit · November 30, 2001, 21:20

Firstly, I think existing civs should all stay (add Ethiopia rather than replace Zulu FE).
For the sake of argument, as far as additions go, I'll talk in terms of a World Map:
Africa needs more civs, S. America needs one let alone more and Asia needs filling up.

Also, I hate to come over all PC but if Joan D'Arc goes there will be even fewer women leaders. That is realistic, but I feel that far too many game manuals (yes I have been known to read one or two) either make mere token efforts to recognise that birds/chicks/babes do actually play computer games or just plain don't represent them as players. FE, His/He rather than The/that player or Their - Rant -

Napolean may possibly have been the best military commander ever (until he thought he could take and hold Russia) but Joan D'Arc kicked seven shades out of the English AND she was a women in a time when women just didn't/couldn't go around leading armies (and still don't/can't I might add)

I mean, at least in Civ 2 you had a choice... now theres a thought... heh heh

Jason · December 1, 2001, 00:57

Still, PCness is no excuse. They should have sprung for 2 genders.

And what's with no French blue! That pink is bloody horrible! I'm going to have to put Cardinal Mazarin (Now there's a great leader of France) in and change the colour back to a good French blue or gray.