Complete.Org: Mailing Lists: Archives: freeciv-data: February 2002:
[freeciv-data] Re: [Freeciv-Dev] Re: Alternative nation dialog

[freeciv-data] Re: [Freeciv-Dev] Re: Alternative nation dialog

[Top] [All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index] [Thread Index]
To: aliaga <aliaga@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: freeciv-data@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [freeciv-data] Re: [Freeciv-Dev] Re: Alternative nation dialog
From: Raahul Kumar <raahul_da_man@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 17:53:19 -0800 (PST)
Reply-to: freeciv-data@xxxxxxxxxxx

--- aliaga <aliaga@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> At 28-02-02 07:33 -0800, you wrote:
> >Let me explain my motivations. As I said before, I want distinct civs like
> >in Civ 3. Each civ should have its own advantages, and that is simply not
> >compatible with 100 civs. Therefore, the list should be pruned.
> Hmmm, I think Civ I mode or Civ II mode tend to favor the "big bunch" 
> approach, where only names of cities and rulers differentiate the tribes. 
> For Civ III why not? As long as I can have the Draka Dominationers 
> conquering the Russians and the United States...

Nothing is going to stop you installing modpacks. 

> >I also find something deeply annoying about no name civs competing with me 
> >for world domination.
> Just smash them, then :-)
> >It doesn't bother me that Japan, England or India are my rivals.
> First you conquer the small bits, then go for the big ones, kind of thing?

Nah, it's pretty much the nearest civ to me or on my island/continent is 

> Anyways, people will always want their (bizarre) choices for playing.
> >Lithuania? Where the hell is it on the map?
> Ask Lithuanian players, or Lithuania's fans. If you insist that they play 
> under some other banner, they can choose to not play with you. End of fun.
> Then, as has already been pointed out, why not have Lithuania as world 
> superpower and everybody else as the rats in the walls? It's one of those 
> nice things in the game!


> >no modern nation is descended from the phoenicians.
> Directly perhaps not. But there's still the cities they founded and their 
> neighbours remember them well enough.
> >Including them will satisfy no one.
> Except accuracy lovers. Me, for one, would love have them and not the 
> bloody Romans as ancient world superpower.

I do agree with you on the Phoenicians. But still, if a Civ cannot stand the
test of time ....

There are a lot of nations that are almost unknown. But that is what the
Era modpack is for. And total accuracy is very dangerous. Consider China and
India. In Freeciv terms, they would start with catapaults, elephants, maths,
early writing, construction, and in prime agricultural areas. China at least
would also have magnetism,  and gunpowder. There'd be no way these nations
not totally dominate in Freeciv.

> They mapped their whole world with those very sinkable ships they had (you 
> know, before that WoW that upgrades them), they linked everybody else with 
> their commerce runs, they were the scientifically-minded people when the 
> Greeks were still inventing the wheel...
> >Only the celebrity civs.
> The cities of Biblos, Sidon, Tiro. The first circumnavigation of Africa.

Really? I presume this is based on maps of the coastline. I can't believe they
managed that in triremes.
> Discovering the Atlantic and the British islands. Some of the first 
> Alphabets, codes of laws, navy, international treaties. Founding half the 
> important cities all around the Mediterranean. Things in Mathematics as 
> well, I believe... Just ask any History fan or good History book.
> I would even say that the real difference between the Civ idea and, say, 
> One Must Fall, is that you can get a tribe like that one and do _something_ 
> with them. not just play Risk, but write Alternative History. More fun to it.

You are writing alternative history. After all, no civ in the world today is
dominant over all others.

> >Land Area - grab more than 20 % of the world's surface area or rule a
> >continent, you are in regardless of any other criteria.
> >
> >Phoenicians don't meet this. Neither does Spain or Portugal.
> If having founded 20+ cities in the Bronze Age and exploring almost all the 
> know world does not meet that criterium, then drop that criterium.

It's a sensible criteria. Any nation that succeeded in conquering a huge chunk
of the world is clearly a civ to be reckoned with. They had a solid world
domination chance.

> If SouthAmerica's surface area does not meet that criterium, then drop that 
> criterium.
> If Spain does not fit the role of an exploring, conquering, expanding, 
> dominating, politicking tribe, then who?
I don't deny that. I don't recall ever denying that.

> >Spain or Portugal have contributed - what ?
> Navigation. 

Chinese did more and much sooner. Arabs were actually the ones who invented
instruments to navigate at sea.


What? I don't know of any famous spanish mathematicians ...


Yes, the Spanish Armada was very successful ;).



> Civilization. What else is needed?

> >Phoenicians came up with an alphabet
> >that was independently discovered elsewhere in the world. They're probably
> not
> >even the first to the alphabet. The Indus civ(Indian) was possibly the 
> >first to
> >phonetic writing. Regardless, writing was discovered independently and
> often.
> Remember the start of the game, when every tribe gets a flavour of the same 
> bunch of basic sciences? That's why. :-)
> Also, remember that pic in the endgame if you lost? those were ruins, most 
> likely, Phoenician ruins. thay played and lost, why not?
> In fact, those pesky Phoenicians do meet your other criteria: they get 
> credited for the deeds of other tribes, mostly because they are more known.
> >Sheer impact on the world - any civ that has left a lasting impact centuries
> >later. Spain and Portugal would struggle to make that list.
> Subtract 1492 from the date of the USA-Mexico war (remember The Alamo). 
> That's more than a century in my defective Pentium. Russia, if counted from 
> the Communist Revolution, drops out. USA, if counted from their first 
> foreign war (with Spain of all nations!) in 1898, BARELY makes it.

You know very well that Russia and America had and still have solid world
domination chances. Russia has controlled a huge land mass, along with America,
they make it on that Criteria alone. Russians have also contributed a lot to
science. Check out the list of noble prize winners.

> And guess who wins that one, hands down, the damned Phoenicians, with 
> milennia to spare.

I really know nothing about them. Amateur historian, I'm really interested only
in civs that used ingenious weapons and/or coming close to taking over the

> >The Mongols are a standout as an otherwise crap civ, but they changed the 
> >world.
> They changed Europe. The Portuguese changed the world when Magellan 
> circumnavigated it.

The world goddamn it. They smashed everyone in their path, almost conquered the
japanese, built the largest empire the world has ever seen. Introduced the
death due to their great roadworks, gunpowder and lots of trade between east
west happened due to the mongols.

> >Indians, ;-). African elephants cannot be tamed. All war elephants are
> >asian elephants. Indians were also the first with the battlefield use of
> Heh, had forgotten that one. But the Indians did not pit their Elephants 
> against Roman Legions and Phalanxes. Annibal the Carthaginian did that.

Indians and Chinese civs, bizarrely, never made a bid to take over the world. I
cannot explain why. 

> >rockets and rhinos. Chinese were of course first with the use of rockets 
> >as fireworks.
> >Oddly enough, Indians also used cheetahs and tigers and lions in warfare 
> >as well.
> Hummm, would love to see those units in some modpack!

Cool, innit ;). I still think Hannibal made the best use of animals in war.
Snakes in baskets, he had his soldiers toss them at enemy ships. They panicked
and he won easily. Why didn't I think of that?

> >I don't know anything about Carthaginia. Beyond Hannibal and the Alps, the
> >average Freeciver will say, who? Goddamn Romans trashed all the historic
> Sadly true. But Carthage was the first naval superpower. Navy tactics where 
> invented then and there in the struggle with the Romans. Besides, they 
> lasted more than a century too, even if their city list is shorter than
> usual.

Difficult to tell what they actually accomplished.

> >evidence. Any Civ that was totally wiped out of history could not have 
> >been all
> >that great. Survival is the first test of greatness.
> Ahem, the Romans kept all sorts of records on these their fearsome foes, 
> and there's the stones, of course. So wiped they were not. Out of active 
> role, could be said.
> But the same could be said about the Dinnosaurs, so what? There will still 
> be people who like playing against Annibal as well as against Velociraptor, 
> or make THEM win against the Romans (or Mammals).

Heh. Weird, I cannot imagine dinosaur tech. Sharp teeth, spikes on tail ...

> >Spain was important. Add them to the list. Nonetheless, I cannot name the
> >spanish contributions to civilisation. What did the spanish add 
> >scientifically?
> More than a few bits, lets have a random pick over Civ-like things: the 
> first hand-portable cannon, 

Turks were probably first with battlefield use of cannon. The little matter of

the pikemen, 

Switzerland surely?

the Galleon, 

Ripped off arab and chinese civs.

the Caravel, the 
> Zero,

> the heavy sword, astronomy, modern-mapmaking, fortresses, the 
> explorer unit (the one with the spanish-trademarked helmet), 


I think spies predate any civ.
> Guerrilla warfare, the first Great Depression, the first serious studies 
> about those tiny endangered species called neurones and the accoustic 
> guitar. :-)


> >Not portugal. Their time in the sun was too short.
> Say that to victims of the national Brazilian soccer team ;-)

You know, if Brazil was the undisputed leader of South America, instead of
second fiddle to the U.S, I'd say you were right.

> And, more than a century does meet your criteria, so... don't blame them if 
> Columbus went to Spain.
> >Rockets and rhinos - The Indian civilisation.
> And mathematics and manuals of love-making, too... 

That's just not as cool.

> Oh, and I was not aware someone claimed Israel never made an impact. Wow, 
> unless we are forgetting about the ANCIENT Israel tribes, and that size is 
> not the only that matters, nobody in the Western Hemisphere of this dust 
> rock can claim that Israel has not impacted them.
> My 0.02E

Nyet, Israeli civ had no impact. Their religion on the other hand did only
indirectly. If people everywhere had converted to judaism, you would have a
point. Israeli civ never gave any great scientific advances or controlled large
chunk of the world.

Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Greetings - Send FREE e-cards for every occasion!

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]