[Freeciv-Dev] Re: Alternative nation dialog

[Daniel L Speyer <dspeyer@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, 28 Feb 2002, Raahul Kumar wrote:

> 
> --- Reinier Post <rp@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 28, 2002 at 04:57:47PM -0400, Mark Metson wrote:
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 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?
> 
> Yes ;). No seriously, it's an attempt at historical realism. Are you claiming
> that any other civ could have done what the mongols did? Only a tough nation
> of hardened warriors who were incredible horsemen/archers could have taken so
> much of the world so quickly. If Genghiz Khan had been born in a soft civlised
> nation like China, India or Europe he would have lived and died a minor
> warlord.
> 
> It's not hardcoded in their genes, it's an effect of their culture.
> 
> Same thing with Roman legions, you have to admit they were great fighting
> units.
> The Roman civ should enjoy its time in the sun where they kick butt. So on for
> other civs etc.
> 
> 

OK, I've been avoiding this one, but here goes... :)

If the mongols had arisen in an arable realm like China they wouldn't have
become nomadic warriors.  Farming would have been more
attractive.  Witness what did happen when they finally did get to live in
China -- they became Chinese.  Similarly, if they had lived in the dense
jungles of Africa or the horseless plains of North America, they wouldn't
have become horseman.

At present we make no attempt to line nations up with their real-world
geography, so attempting to match them with real world culture is
unreasonable.  If the Dunedain or Phonoecians are placed far from the
coast, should they research navigation anyway out of 'realism'?

Now, matching civs to their real geography would be an interesting
idea.  The Arabs start in a desert, the Egyptians on a river near an
isthimus, the Dunadun on their own really big island.  That might get us
the cultural simularity without forcing ugliness on multiplayer.  It might
also require a complete rewrite on the map generation code.

> > 
> > Here we go again :-)
> > 
> > Raahul means that in the commercial Civs the Ai players have nation-bound
> > characteristics.  The characteristics can be added to Freeciv.  I agree
> > with Daniel though that it's better to separate them from the choice
> > of nation.  
> 
> No. Let me try to convince you of my viewpoint. In Civ 3 style, if I pick
> Chinese and you pick Aztecs, we both know what we're up against. I have to
> avoid
> being rushed to death early on, but later your aztec butt will be in for some
> serious prodding.
> 

That's not very realistic.  A historian from 500 years later might know
what they were up against, but no one at the time did.  When the Aztecs
met with the Malians and the Spanish (slight blurring of history), they
had no way of knowing what they were up against until the malians
offloaded diplomats and caravans and the spanish offloaded musketeers and
canons.

Freeciv already gives a lot of information that real leaders wouldn't have
(scores, "historian reports", wonder data, chatline -- all whether or not 
you've contacted the civs).  There's no need to give more.  Anyone who
really needs it (in single-player) can cheat.

> Your way, if someone picks some civ a,I have no idea what he's bringing to the
> party. There are no tactics that I can devise just based on his choice of civ.
> Their's also the realism argument. Realistically, only some civs ever really
> had
> a shot at world domination. 
> 

Care to list which ones?  Remember, the list should include every civ that
dominated (militarily or economicly) a significant portion of the world,
and other civs that could have but didn't.  What do Mongolia, Rome,
Macedonia, Japan, England, the U.S. and Russia have in common that most of
the world lacks?

Also, if only a few nations have a chance, would you care to predict which
will be the major powers of the next 20 years?  I'd be interested to know.

--Daniel Speyer
If you *don't* consider sharing information to be morally equivalent to 
kidnapping and murder on the high seas, you probably shouldn't use the
phrase "software piracy."

> >Freeciv is very much a multiplayer, multinationality game
> > and people may want to pick their nations separate from characteristics
> > of the associated AI player.
> >
> 
> The ability to do this should be there, I'd just like a Civ 3 mode that is
> identical to the current one by Sid.
>  
> > -- 
> > Reinier
> > 
> 
> 
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Greetings - Send FREE e-cards for every occasion!
> http://greetings.yahoo.com
> 
>