[Freeciv-Dev] Re: Alternative nation dialog

[Mark Metson <markm@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, 28 Feb 2002, Raahul Kumar wrote:

> > > 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.

Any nation that chose Warrior Code and Horse Riding early (first to get
them possibly?) could do it. Mongols happened to be the ones who did. Also
it may help to have them suffer few failures early on with those tactics
thus being encouraged to follow up on them. A friend who used to design
games used to argue that you cannot upgrade/improve unless you fail though
because you will run up against "if it aint broken dont fix it"
mentalities. Possibly such mentalities could be a tribe/civ determined
thing though, neophobes vs neophiles or somesuch.

> It's not hardcoded in their genes, it's an effect of their culture.

But the player determines the culture, no? Mind you I have ended up
figuring "Culture" would probably be the tech that differentiates Settlers
from similar units that can do the Settler things other than actually
setting up a city so maybe it can be assumed that having Settlers assumes
having an established "Culture" or "National Myth" or "Personality" or
something along those lines. Maybe have a mode in which the player is
pretty much bound by the sequence of techs outlined in the nation
rulesets? Maybe with some criteria for when and with what probability a
chance exists to deviate from it slightly or seriously?

> 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.

Maybe any nation whose founders are raised by wolves would do the same?
;-)

> 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.

But *why* ? There should be mechanisms behind such things, and those
mechanisms should be in the game so that any civ that falls afoul of the
same mechanisms gets the same results from them. Just as some techs have
downsides such as pollution or lowered trade route income, maybe some
should have effects upon the national spirit, or a chance of such effects.

> 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.

The emulating of an existing game whether said game makes sense or not is
a valid point, so "in Civ3 mode" do as Civ3 does, sure. That should not
stop us taking "better" or "alternative" routes too though.

BB
MM

-- 
Got a website? Get 10,000+ hits a day FREE...
http://makemoney.knotwork.com/10000hits/