new starting style

fezick31 · February 4, 2002, 11:05

I've been reading a lot in the thread about wther the USA should be included as a civilization. Half the pople say they should, stateing the have unique culture and achievements. The other half say they are too young and that their culutre developed out of Europe do to their roots as a colony.

This led to the point that all civilization are descendent of some other civilization, reaching all the way back to the first human settlement.

My thoery is this (whether this is even remoetly possable for civ3 w/o scripting, i can't say): Why not start with one civilization. Set this civ up to split up in Civil War every couple of humdred years until the number of splinter nations equals that of the map size. The game may have to start in 5000 BC instead of 4000 BC, but it would also provide for realistic cultural links and histories.

This isn't every civ, but you get the idea. You could also start withmore than one starting tribe. I'm not sure this possable in Civ3 however.

Comments?

fezick31 · February 4, 2002, 11:25

the text screwed up in the ifrst post, so i converted it to an image. Here is an example of what I'm talking about (for those of you like me who understand things more clearly when they are presented viually).

Dauphin · February 4, 2002, 12:51

Its a good idea, and one that has been discussed quite a bit, but I don't think civ is suited to it, at least not in the complete fashion you suggest. I enjoy schisms, but to start off with just one civ is not right. Maybe start with 5 or 6 and then expand to 8 or 9.

siredgar · February 4, 2002, 15:12

How does China branch out from India??? China is one of the oldest civilizations in the world. You will need to do more work on that chart.

fezick31 · February 4, 2002, 15:16

Quote:

How does China branch out from India??? China is one of the oldest civilizations in the world. You will need to do more work on that chart.

it's not a final chart, and I was basing it on how the earth would have been populated by people moving out from the mesopitamia (sp?). It was not meant as a final list by any means, but to illustrate a point.

geez.

TacticalGrace · February 5, 2002, 07:15

Quote:

it's not a final chart, and I was basing it on how the earth would have been populated by people moving out from the mesopitamia (sp?). It was not meant as a final list by any means, but to illustrate a point.

problem with this model (though in parts correct) is that people had already spread round the world by the time of "dawn of civilization" in mesopotamia. What spread from there in vaguely the way you describe were cutural influences.

America is different from all the other splits you describe. England/france/germany were NOT romans that split off. They were existing people that were conquered by the romans and so absorbed a lot of roman culture.

americans were european colonists that "conquered" the indigenous people and displaced them.

fezick31 · February 5, 2002, 09:55

vague is the best way to describe. I put the list together during my office hours. I still think it would make for an interesting mod, although it may not be possible in Civ 3. Maybe I'll go back and try it in ToT. Just gotta find time...

I think Sag. Dolphin was right in saying it would best work with a couple of civs to start.

It also might be interesting to just see a higher chance of civs splitting the bigger they got (that is the heart of this argument, i think, is the birth of civs from others). This is why i drew the european civs from rome. Granted there were people there before the Romans "annexed" Europe, but with the exception of the celts, they were all basicly unorganized tribes. The cultures we know today in Europe are all a result of those tribes being part of the Roman empire (or conquering it in the case of the germans). The empire just got too big for it's army, and poof, France, Germany, England, Spain, and the Byzentine Empire all came into being where before had only been colonies (although I think the Byzentine Empire split offon it's own before rome collapsed).

I just thnk it would be neat to try, accurate or not. Either way, it would be more accurate than having anybody but the egyptians and chinese at the start of the game. Maybe the aztecs, but they wouldn't be allowed to build a city for 100 turns, just walk around and figure out how in the world to civilize S. America

godinex · February 5, 2002, 18:47

Quote:

Originally posted by fezick31
the text screwed up in the ifrst post, so i converted it to an image. Here is an example of what I'm talking about (for those of you like me who understand things more clearly when they are presented viually).

¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿???????????????????

What supose to do that????

My friend, these cultures are linked no are "sons" of other cultures.

Willem · February 6, 2002, 01:25

Quote:

Originally posted by fezick31

it's not a final chart, and I was basing it on how the earth would have been populated by people moving out from the mesopitamia (sp?). It was not meant as a final list by any means, but to illustrate a point.

geez.

Except that people moved out from Africa, not Mesapotamia. They just ended up there and decided to stick around. Just like they ended up in China and India. So you'd have to start the game at about 2-300,000 BC, give or take a 100,000 years or so. Rather a long game don't you think?

siredgar · February 6, 2002, 10:17

I don't necessarily agree with the logic behind this scheme, but if you were to re-do this chart it would be more appropriate to have at least four starting civs based on the great rivers of ancient times: Nile, Mesopotamia, Indus, and Yangtze.

These are the four great civilizations of the ancient world, according to most historians. You can have other civilizations sprouting out from these civs, but it still wouldn't make much sense. This is because the "sprouting" civs are distinct enough to be called their own and some do not have civs to "give birth to", per se, such as Nile or Indus.

Regardless, Mesopotamia is not the birthplace of all civilization anyhow.

fezick31 · February 6, 2002, 11:19

it was not my intention to make anyone upset,, as it appears some of you are. If that's the case, I appoligize. However, many of you are reading way too much into this chart.
The point of this post was not to discredit any civ, or to make editorial comments about the birth of civilization. I was just curious about a starting style idea and what people thought of it. I've said as much several times. The idea is the theory behind the design of the style, not the civs that are in it.

If you don't like the style, say so, but please don't get all defensive about the civs in the chart. They could very well have been fake names and not changed the post. I was just trying to show an idea that I thought might be interesting in game play. Whether it starts in Babylon, Africa, or the moon doesn't really matter. I'm just trying to answer a few questions:

1) How can the formation of civilizations be more interesting?
2) Can you generate cultural splits in Civ3?

I thought of it (and as I have been informed, i am not the first) while reading posts in the thread about America as a civ. People kept saying it didn't belong because it was closely tied to England, being a former colony. This seemed like an interesting way to accomadate cultures that are formed by splits.

siredgar · February 7, 2002, 01:31

It's alright to propose ideas, but you will need to do the research and provide a logical argument for them. If it doesn't make sense, then it's no use to anyone but yourself. Anyhow, don't be offended because people criticize your arguments. We do this here all the time. At least people are reading what you're posting and that means it's interesting to them!

fezick31 · February 7, 2002, 09:48

that's true

I don't mind being criticized. It just seemed some people took it personally.

Maybe some of these questions would be best answered by Firaxis, especially the one on empire splitting. Whether or not my idea was flawed (which I tend to agree with, as it would be hard to impliment and probably not that popular), I would still like to see Civil Wars in Civ3. It would really make things interesting, and with the map being able to handle 16 civs, it would add a twist to the game.

I do like the debate though, so keep it up!
(I know, I'm asking for it

)
How many civs would you start with and what else would you change to make this a viable idea? Or is it Dead On Arrival?

also, i'll work on my spelling. Reading back over my posts was shameful