[Freeciv-Dev] Re: Alternative nation dialog

[Raahul Kumar <raahul_da_man@xxxxxxxxx>]

--- Mark Metson <markm@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> 
> 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. 

No, not quite. The concepts of horse riding, archery and warrior code were
known to the all the civs the mongols conquered. In Civ terms, all the civs
they defeated were at equal or higher tech level. Yes, you in the back, the
mongols
absorbed the tech of everyone they beat. They used chinese catapaults, arab
horses and camels etc.

It was the harsh environment of Mongolia that produced the mounted archer. It's
ludicrous to claim that the soft civilised nations could have produced great
warriors. Their tactics came about because conflict was brutal and often. 

>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?
> 

No he doesn't. Otherwise,why bother selecting a civ in the first place? You
might as well play the Civ Mark, with all of your tribemembers clones of
yourself.

Basically - most civs are victim civs. They are basically there to get beaten
up
and dominated by the great civs.

> > 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?
> ;-)
> 

The romans brought discipline to the mix. There was no new tech in the legion.
Their fightming men one on one were possibly worse than their opponents. It was
their tactics as an army, and above all their discipline, which lead the Romans
to victory.

> > 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.

It's basically about strategy. Knowing that you are going to employ the Aztecs,
I have to counter your advantage until the chinese advantage comes into play.
And then it's your turn to suffer, and prove your strategy by outthinking me.

> > 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.
> 

Yes, you have not quite suggested exactly what you want.


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Greetings - Send FREE e-cards for every occasion!
http://greetings.yahoo.com