Ancient & Modern civs !!

[Ralf]

Well, why not!

The player is likely to face a pre-game pool of (at least) 30-40+ civs to choose between - both ancient and modern civs. It would be easy to add an...

- Ancient AI-opponents only
- Modern AI-opponents only
- Both ancient & modern AI-opponents

3-way toggle button, beneath above screen.

[This message has been edited by Ralf (edited January 21, 2001).]

[The diplomat]

I think I like the idea a lot.

In ctp2, say you start as the Romans, your neighbors might be the Polish, the Australians and the Ethiopians. That is just weird and utterly ridiculous, and it completely detracts fromt the historical aspect of the game.

This should not happen!

------------------
No permanent enemies, no permanent friends.
[This message has been edited by The diplomat (edited January 21, 2001).]

[JosefGiven]

After writing tirelessly about the importance of historical accuracy for the civ series, I have finally found one pro-accuracy point with which I do not entirely agree.

Yes, by all means include the feature if it is optional, but speaking for myself, I would play with it switched off.

Y'see, I like to see civ as an opportunity to play out 'What if?...' style historical scenarios; parallel historical alternatives firmly based within the constraints and features of this planet and universe.

Aztecs with the bomb? Romans in F-16s? Why not? It's good for a laugh!



------------------
Josef Given
josefgiven@hotmail.com

[Ralf]

I had an idea! Lets say Firaxis decides to implement civ-unique SMAC-style benefits ONLY and permanently to each civ. (I wouldnt like that - I voted Civ-2 style benefits only).

A part of the dilemma with having SMAC-style civ-benefits in Civ-3, is the very extensive timeline of 6000+ years (compared with only 1000 years in AOK, for example).
What if ancient civs had civ-unique ancient/medieval benefits only, and modern civs had civ-unique medieval/modern benefits only? Maybe it would be easier to add SMAC-style benefits, if they only ruled in a certain 1/3, or 1/2-part of the whole timeline?

Personally, im all for Civ-2 style benefits only as my primary alternative, and both Civ-2/SMAC-style as an secondary alternative. But anyway - what do you think?

[Anodyne]

Ok, there's been some discussion on what civs should be added etc... but here's a suggestion to make everyone happy!!
What about an option, that you could play on "antique" or "modern" mode. Some players, like I, for example, like to have their campaigns to concentrate on the antique times, and civs like the Americans or Spanish don't fit them very well, but on the other hand, some players may want to play campaigns that would concentrate on modern times, and then, civs like Americans, Germans, etc.. would be very important!
So, what if you could choose, in the beginning of the game, what civs would be included?
For example, you could choose if you have the English, OR replace them with Normans on 'antique' mode, French/Gauls, Germans/Goths, Spanish/Iberians, etc... And players who'd like to play a modern game could delete civs like Babylonians or Carthaginians that really have NO influence today.
For example, on antique mode, you'd have civ 'Vikings', but on modern mode, they'd be replaced by 3 different civs, 'Norwegians', 'Swedish' and 'Danish'.
Or disable Carthaginians and have Phoenicians instead (or vice versa, whatever suits you), etc...
And the 'accelerated startup' option could be much more developed, too.
Please, add your comments!

[bagdar]

I too care about historical accuracy in Civ, but I have to disagree on this point, because once again, we have hit the border between simhistory and civ game. It's the same question as whether it is historically accurate for you to live for 6000 years in your long and prosperous reign. Sure, in 4000BC most of the original Civs don't sound right, but dividing the game in two is not a good idea either. If you ask me, (and why would anyone ask me, anyway ) I'd either keep the distribution of the civs as it is, or abandon the current naming of Civs altogether and give them generic names, based on geography. In fact, in the first case, if you use your imagination, you'd see that there's no need to increase the number of civilizations or worry about the history of nationalities: we have 3 civs from Africa, one from the south, one from the north west and one from the north east; we've got two middle eastern civs, 3 mediterraneans, 4 west European civs, 1 east European Civ, 1 civ from central asia, 1 from south asia and 2 from east asia, as well as 2 north Americans and one central American civ. That covers much more than the places where civilization actually sprung. (well, civ is not always played on the earth map, but the Civs it employs are real terrestrial civs. )--Besides, this also explains why unalterable unique civs is such nonsense.-- Why keep on expanding the list, or divide the game into modern/ancient versions? I remember that there was a forum with a family tree of some sort of nationalities. I don't think we need this. However, now that the website has declared a new feature in Civ games, that of nationality, we may expect exciting new things to do with national identities etc. Let's wait and see.
[This message has been edited by bagdar (edited January 22, 2001).]