[Freeciv-Dev] Re: Alternative nation dialog

[aliaga <aliaga@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hello,

At 28-02-02 16:57 -0400, you wrote:
> That may be a particularly poor example inasmuch as the so called
> Americans are presumably a mongrel mix of European nations not a North
> American nation a all.
It would be better for the brainstorming to avoid relying too much in "real 
world" examples. Just think about it the way hardened Alternative History 
fans do, there's plenty of examples from imaginary worlds out there...

> I would prefer that IF there is to be "arbitrary" differences between civs
> they have a reason that is within the game, like the Wonders are. What is
I was thinking more or less along the same lines. Let's have some 
"predefined" paths to hegemony. Let everybody choose what they want to 
achieve (and pay its penalties as well as get its bonuses). But there's the 
important difference between the Civ genre and other games, that in civ, 
you can always "copycat" other tribes. If you survive to them, that is, you 
are able to say "heh, those mounted archers are better than my elephants. 
Let's study horses!"
So the bonuses would consist mainly on the price you pay: the nation 
already having great horseriders and mounted archers would have it easier 
to refine those units than the nation not knowing horses in the first 
place. But the nation having neighbors who do use horses should definitely 
have it easier start using "horse tech" than the poor sods who never ever 
have seen a horse, much less a horserider.
And all this I think can already be set up in the existing frame of the game.


> it that happened to the Americans genes or memes that eventually resulted
> in the superior fighter jet? Whatever is was should be in the game and
Let's have better efficiency on those diplomats and spies bred in places 
where cities of many different cultures are closer together. Call it 
"mixed-bred" bonus, like veteran status. Place it in the tech tree, too, if 
you want. The only real care about all these ideas is not to unbalance the 
game too much.
After all, in this game, the lowlifes with the poor tech can still beat the 
higher tech-powered guys, and if they win often enough, they should be able 
to profit from it and even tilt the balance with their enemies. Sort of 
some "spying ability" for common military units who survive battle against 
superior foes.

> In fact probably these bonuses should be determined/allocated somewhat
> closer to the time they take effect. For example it could be the fact that
> the first people to develop heavier than air flight belonged to a
> particular nation that caused that nation to have an edge in matters
> relating to flight.
Just what I had in mind. The edge can be: reduced expenditure in subsequent 
techs needed.


> That certainly seems likelier than that some stoneage
> person decided not to do anything notable or unique until after the
> development of high tech. Such putting off of greatness seems likelier to
> result in forever putting things off.
More likely result: get smashed by the guy with the better tech.


> Hmm possibly if the national dream is to have a great leader that could be
> a bonus for them: a great leader. Whereas if the national dream is to fly
> like an eagle, they could get a bonus toward developing flight?
Ahhh, yes, would be nice to implement moral of the troops to win (or lose) 
battles or phylosophies enabling the thinkers to think more when under 
their preferred government. Just think about how bizarre things could 
become when some firm believer in the underneath forces of the universe, 
like Isaac Newton, finds himself under such "rationalist" leaders (who 
maybe do not even believe in heavier-than-air flying) that he's impelled to 
go work for the magic-believing half-savages of another continent.
Or when the free-thinkers of the world flock to the banner of the first 
modern Republic instead of working for their despotic monarchs. Kind of 
already included in the game, but definitely fun to evolve further, I'd think.

> Why the Mongols? In hindsight, BECAUSE they did in our version of history
> end up dominating the Steppe with horsemen, and did end up developing
> cataphracts, we associate them with being good with horsemen. They had
> mounted archers before some other people too. Perhaps you are even
> thinking of mounted archery in your comment.
Also, there's been other great horsemen in the world, and other great 
mounted archers. Time and place also count, and commitment to the task of 
world-domination, luck and perhaps madness, or even a Great leader. All of 
those should have their place in the game. What if the Mongols and Genghis 
Khan had found in front of them such great warriors as themselves (say the 
Northern American steppe tribes)?

> However wouldnt it make more sense to suggest that whatever civ does end
> up developing the composite bow early and dominating the steppes early
> should go on to have a bonus in further developments of the horseriding
> paradigm,
Yes, but let's also give them the possibility to awe at their first sight 
of a jet fighter and be able to deviate from their path (to extintion) and 
somehow pursue that new tech of "fighting like eagles".
My 0.02E