[Freeciv-Dev] Re: Alternative nation dialog

[Mark Metson <markm@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, 28 Feb 2002, Raahul Kumar wrote:

> > 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. 

Then the game situation to look for may be poor terrain - cities with very
low food and production. Or, possibly better, figure a way to include
Nomads. Some kind of movable pseudo-city with lowered values or something.

> 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.

Yeah well the idea that tactics and leadership require modern tech has
always been somewhat dubious. Like the ancients modpack says, the only
thing new about Guerilla Warfare is the name. Didn't the Romans have
conscription? For that matter who else had Legions? The Legion is tougher
in Freeciv than in Civ1 and harder to get to, maybe the Romans simply got
there first. Why others didnt also field Legions is a bit mysterious
though unless maybe the Carthaginians or some other infamous enemy of Rome
may have done so?

The lack of other viable development paths may be forcing too many players
to go through the Legion step. Civ is far too Christianity-centric, I dont
know why they heck Freeciv (presumably from Civ2 ?) threw in Polytheism as
a useless tech that does nothing other than make it harder to get to
Cathedrals. What about Druids and Bards, possibly they may have been part
of why their cultures stuck with the individualistic Hero instead of
adopting a Legionaire attitude. National Myths perhaps? There was
something about Legions and Reiches that some European types disliked and
still do. Possibly something of the same idealism of the individual that
led to the United States national myth of "democracy" and "libertarianism"
and such.

> 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.

I have no idea what the Civ2 purported national advantages are other than
the F15. Presumably the Aztecs or Mayans or Incas would have had no Wheel
until very late? What they had instead though I don't know other than
terrorising subject races by means of cannibalism.

> > 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.

One thing definite and specific would be a mode in which the "techlevel"
value chooses techs based on the order of development specified in the
nation rulesets instead of choosing them at random.

BB
MM

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