[Freeciv-Dev] Re: Alternative nation dialog

[Raahul Kumar <raahul_da_man@xxxxxxxxx>]

--- Daniel L Speyer <dspeyer@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
<snip>

> 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.  

Ah hah. A Guns, Germs and Steel reader. Geographical determinism at its worst.
No, not quite true. North America is a case in point. The Sioux and the other
tribes could have taken up farming, it was rich farmland. They instead chose
the nomadic lifestyle.

>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.
>

True. Incidentally, I play on the world map. It's just more emotionally
satisfying to conquer the earth than some random islands.
 
> 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'?
> 

No. In the real world map, they get the correct starting points. It sucks
to be japanese though.

> 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.
> 

Who are the Dunadun?

> > > 
> > > 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.
> 

You're going to argue realism ;). Like I said before, any game that allows you
direct control over your empire, a satellite overhead view long before your
civ achieves the wheel and immortality already has problems with realism. I'm
not even going to touch the issue of being able to research tech you do not
even know exists.

> 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?
> 

Quite a lot. Military and scientific knowledge, control of huge chunks of the
planets surface, defeating and being acknowledged as great powers by all other
nations. It's quite an easy list.

If your nation controlled a large chunk of the planet  - you make the list.

China
India
Japan
Egypt
Russia
European Union
France 
Germany
USA
Canada
Rome
Persia
Australia
Greece/Macedonia
Aztecs
Mayans
Spain
England

If your nation contributed many impressive technologies - you make the list. 

China
India
Japan
Egypt
Russia
France 
Germany
USA
Rome
Persia
Greece/Macedonia
England

If your nation has survived to the present day - you make the list

India
Japan
China
Egypt
Rome
Persia
Greece/Macedonia
England

If you're on multiple lists, or are the no I in any single list, you certainly
make it.

> 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.
>

Heh, you already know.

Current powers list is based on 

1) Posession of Weapons of Mass Destruction or the ability to easily and
quickly build them
2.) A space program and a ballistic missile capable of reaching the US
(If NMD is built, then enough missiles to get past them)
3.) Prominence in technology
4.) Land Area
5.) Control of important world resources
6.) Economics

That's very easy.  China and India. The question is of course exactly when?
I predict China will conquer Taiwan and be the latest Asian Power to defeat
the US in battle after 2015. (List of Asian countries that defeated the US:
Japan, Vietnam, North Korea & China). Taiwan's only hope is to get China to
fight that war now. 

The list of contenders:

America(current champion) at best no 3, 4 Russia(Impossible to predict, they
might even disappear off this list), 5 EU (Not Britain or France or Germany,
only together), Japan.

Note that the EU is a potential sleeper. They might easily become the strongest
power on the planet, it all depends on what they invest in tech.

I realistically expect it to be a race between America and EU and Japan early
on, then China to pass Japan and enter the race, and then India to pass Japan
and enter the race. After that I expect China to become dominant and India
second, with EU/US 3rd/4th.


Second Rate powers

South Korea(Unified?), Brazil/ Argentine, South Africa will be dominant in its
region. Saudi Arabia will once again become a backwater when the oil money runs
out.

I predict a Cold war like situation between India and China that disappears
when
China (fingers crossed) becomes democratic.

I do reserve the right that if certain technologies are developed to junk these
predictions. After nanotech, ball gazing is worthless. This is the only
technology that could make any civ on this planet undisputed ruler.
 
> --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
> > 
> > 
> 
> 


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