[Freeciv-Dev] Re: Alternative nation dialog

[Mark Metson <markm@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, 28 Feb 2002, Raahul Kumar wrote:

> 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.

Do you think it is encoded in the genes of e.g. North American tribes that
in many centuries time when taken over by (and perhaps interbred with)
white folk they will mysteriously come up with radar that isn't confounded
by the ground, thus develop a superior fighting jet?

That may be a particularly poor example inasmuch as the so called
Americans are presumably a mongrel mix of European nations not a North
American nation a all.

I would prefer that IF there is to be "arbitrary" differences between civs
they have a reason that is within the game, like the Wonders are. What is
it that happened to the Americans genes or memes that eventually resulted
in the superior fighter jet? Whatever is was should be in the game and
whatever civ experiences that same triggering chemical or situation or
accomplishment or whatever should be the one that ends up having that
specific bonus. The very fact that so called Americans are such a mongrel
mix of prior civilisations should make it clear that their emergence
almost certainly was NOT predetermined back in prebiblical times.

In fact probably these bonuses should be determined/allocated somewhat
closer to the time they take effect. For example it could be the fact that
the first people to develop heavier than air flight belonged to a
particular nation that caused that nation to have an edge in matters
relating to flight. That certainly seems likelier than that some stoneage
person decided not to do anything notable or unique until after the
development of high tech. Such putting off of greatness seems likelier to
result in forever putting things off.

> 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.

Hmm possibly if the national dream is to have a great leader that could be
a bonus for them: a great leader. Whereas if the national dream is to fly
like an eagle, they could get a bonus toward developing flight?

> 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.

Why the Mongols? In hindsight, BECAUSE they did in our version of history
end up dominating the Steppe with horsemen, and did end up developing
cataphracts, we associate them with being good with horsemen. They had
mounted archers before some other people too. Perhaps you are even
thinking of mounted archery in your comment.

However wouldnt it make more sense to suggest that whatever civ does end
up developing the composite bow early and dominating the steppes early
should go on to have a bonus in further developments of the horseriding
paradigm, than to suggest that some bunch of naked apes that once had a
chance of going on to grow up into the Mongols role should have this bonus
even if their neighbors turn out to be the ones who actually DO all the
things that put them into the role we in our history attribute to the
Mongols?

Myabe its just the absurdity of trying to assert the (white) Americans as
an ancient tribe fore-ordained from ancient times that makes this whole
concept so stupid....

Blessed Be. -MarkM-