[Freeciv-Dev] Re: Alternative nation dialog

[Daniel Sjölie <deepone@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On 2002-02-28 05:26:50, Raahul Kumar wrote:
> 
> > > The real reason I want fewer civs is that I like the Civ 3 approach, where
> > > every
> > > civ is actually different. With 100 + civs, coming up with items to make
> > them
> > > different is very hard. 16 civs is easy. I also support using the Civ 2
> > > approach
> > > where you can type in your own tribe name.
> > >
> > > The other reason is that Civ 2 and presumably Freeciv is actually about
> > > history.
> > > You're playing actual nations, perhaps on the real world map on the actual
> > > planet with actual technology. If I wanted to play a game divorced from
> > > reality,
> > > Alpha Centauri would be the one.
> > 
> > Well, I consider freeciv not to be a clone if Civ 2 but a general
> > civ-game-engine... Civ 2 might be about history, but IMHO that
> > only means that it should be possible to play freeciv in that way - not
> > that we should limit it to that by removing "non-historical" nations...
> > 
> 
> Yes, but as I said above, having hundreds of civs means nothing if there is no
> real difference between them. Better to have 4 different civs than 400
> identical
> ones with city name lists and flags the only differences.

I disagree...
It would be nice to have a small set of more complex civs that could be
enabled through a server variable or something similar but I do think
that 400 nations with city names lists and flags should remain an
option... The fact that these nations have been created is proof that
people want to play them and freeciv should allow people to play like
they want when it's not too much trouble...

> > > Let's face it. In the best of all possible worlds, I cannot imagine 
> > > certain
> > > civs achieving world domination, or even controlling a large land mass.
> > > Some nations have to be the victims. Every nation cannot be equally good 
> > > at
> > > science and war. 
> > 
> > Not right now, no... But if you cannot imagine any nation achieving
> > world domination if they started 6000 years ago (or any nation today
> > gaining world domination in 6000 years) and had an immortal leader
> > with insight into the future I think you have poor imagination... :)
> > 
> 
> Maybe I do have limited imagination. On the other hand, you believe that only
> because you believe in the great man theory of history. Civilisations have
> become great not because of the achievements of one person, but because of the
> totality. The nation that relies on the great leader dies by the great leader.
> Look at Napeoleonic France, Alexandrian Greece, Stalinist Russia, there are
> countless examples. A nation that has mediocre leaders but wins wars 
> regardless
> is a truly great nation. Examples: Britain, America, Russia(Yes Russia has had
> crap and great leaders, though overwhelmingly crap like every other nation in
> the list), China, India. My theory is that great leaders are the very
> antithesis
> of lasting powerful nations. Look at the utter incompetence shown by the
> winning
> side in World War 1, the utter idiocy of the British in World War II in
> Dunkirk,
> Singapore and Poland just cannot be matched even by the rest of this inspired
> list.

6000 years is a long time... And concerning great leaders - what I
believe is that relatively small event in general can have great
effects... I think that if I had a time maching I could change history
drastically... Your model suggests that one man alone could not change
history drastically because he couldn't by himself change the real
nature of a nation... If you agree a time travelling man could change
history drastically you must also admit that any man _can_ do the
same... I'm not saying that great leaders are neccessarily what shapes
history but I think it is possible and an imortal leader working only
towards world domination with great knowledge of how to achieve it could
do a lot with any nation over 6000 years I think...

> Unfortunately, in Freeciv anyone can triump with any nation. At the very 
> least,
> the other nations that were historic nobodies should start with tremendous
> disadvantages. The countries that were impressive should have great advantages
> e.g the Mongols should have a great mounted unit that appears after chivalry.
> 
> Israel will never make the list in spite of the inspired leadership compard to
> the truly incompetent and corrupt Arab states. 
> 
> In short summary leadership is unimportant, even an active danger. Technology
> matters the most, followed by industrial productivity and commercial prowess.
> At times in the ancient world when fighting was exclusively about the skill of
> warriors, military prowess was the only thing that mattered.
> 
> The best leader is an uninspired, just barely competent beaureucrat.

Hehe... I'll not debate the great leader issue... Not now anyway... :)

/Daniel

-- 
Now take a deep breath, smile and don't take life so seriously... :)