[Freeciv-Dev] Re: Alternative nation dialog

[aliaga <aliaga@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

At 28-02-02 20:06 -0800, you wrote:
> 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.
They could have been beaten by mercenaries, bribery/diplomats, natural 
disasters. The thing is that nobody knew that, then. Or did not bother. It 
happened as it happened. We may play it and make it happen again that way. 
Or not.

> > 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.
Well, it's better to play along some guidelines when you select a banner, 
say Elwes or Dwarves. But is not so funny to have your gameplay so severely 
limited. As it is a matter of taste, let it be an option.

> Basically - most civs are victim civs. They are basically there to get beaten
> up and dominated by the great civs.
Just who decides who is what is unclear...


> 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.
Discipline, moral, propaganda, warrior gods, what a fascinating mix of 
things to try and model and see if can be brought to results...

> 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.
That's not strategy. That's scissors, paper, stone. The real strategy is 
guessing what your enemy can do, then counter that, then adapting to what 
he really does do. Then outguessing him, then adapting to his counters, then...

> Yes, you have not quite suggested exactly what you want.
An enhanced game engine able to cope with all flavors and even evolve some 
unique things out of the mix.
My 0.02E