[Freeciv-Dev] Re: Alternative nation dialog

[Paul Zastoupil <paulz@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I really should stay out of this discussion.... too late.

Raahul, I think you should take a step back and think about Freeciv
for what it is.  A game engine.  The Daniels have a lot of good points
about people _wanting_ to play with all those different nations.
The Dunedain are one of the more popular nations that gets played on
civserver.freeciv.org, and they don't even exist.

If you want to make a civ3 mode, feel free.  But don't alienate the rest of
the community with your inciteful remarks.


On Thu, Feb 28, 2002 at 05:26:50AM -0800, Raahul Kumar wrote:
> 
> --- Daniel_Sjölie <deepone@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On 2002-02-28 04:32:34, Raahul Kumar wrote:
> > > 
> > > --- Daniel_Sjölie <deepone@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > On 2002-02-27 23:33:31, Raahul Kumar wrote:
> > > > > It's ok. I think that Freeciv has too many nations. I mean, the
> > > > Lithuanians,
> > > > > Koreans and Polish civs are nobodies. They never had a crack at world
> > > > > domination. The nation list should be trimmed down to countries that
> > were
> > > > > actually military, or scientifically dominant  or owned large chunks 
> > > > > of
> > the
> > > > > world. All three of course would be better and is actually common.
> > > > > Basically, civs which if you mentioned them doesn't get the responce,
> > who?
> > > > 
> > > > I don't agree...
> > > > Freeciv is not meant to be historically correct in any way really...
> > > > Rather the opposite... That is, the possibility to play a game where
> > > > Lithuanians settle the new world, keep it and dominate the world is a
> > > > _good_ thing...
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > 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.
> 
> > > 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.
> 
> 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.
> 
> > /Daniel
> > 
> > > > Also, world domination is not the only reason to play freeciv... Some
> > > > people simly enjoy the building a nation aspect...
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > So do I. Building a nation at someone else's expense ;).
> > > 
> > > > /Daniel
> > > > 
> > > > -- 
> > > > Now take a deep breath, smile and don't take life so seriously... :)
> > > 
> > > 
> > > __________________________________________________
> > > Do You Yahoo!?
> > > Yahoo! Greetings - Send FREE e-cards for every occasion!
> > > http://greetings.yahoo.com
> > 
> > -- 
> > Now take a deep breath, smile and don't take life so seriously... :)
> 
> 
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Greetings - Send FREE e-cards for every occasion!
> http://greetings.yahoo.com

-- 
Paul Zastoupil