There are a few simple changes I think everyone should make in Civ 2.
Firstly, replacing the Sioux Civ with the Incas. I think this is a real no-brainer: the Incas were historically more advanced and important, and in my opinion more interesting too. Furthermore this is better for geographical balance. I'm also thinking about replacing the Carthaginians with something else, maybe the Dutch.
I also replace the SETI Program wonder with the Internet (which should also require computers and is more important, and if it's not a wonder it at least deserves its own tech). A disadvantage here is that the icon would be wrong but that can be edited too.
I also replace that ghastly purple shield color (seventh civ) in city.gif with a nice dark grey. After all, how could I ever respect a purple civ?
I've also changed all rulers in rules.txt to male rulers and replaced "she" with "he" etc. in labels.txt. This solves the problem of having to think of a female leader for each (new) civ; I also think it's much nicer to play against Augustus than Livia, for example (I don't know of any civ where I would choose a female leader as one of the two most important/interesting ones).
Since it's ridiculous to have alpine troops defending cities, I changed their defense value to 4 and their attack value to 6. I also added a "Heavy Infantry" unit for city defense (ADM 7/5/1) (Heavy Weapons tech requires conscription and machine tools).

Actually I've made much more extensive changes than these but I think these ones are quite simple changes and I really don't think there's a reason not to make them.
Anyway, if anyone has comments or other ideas, please reply.

quote: Originally posted by Dr.Oogkloot on 07-27-2000 07:08 AM I'm also thinking about replacing the Carthaginians with something else, maybe the Dutch.

What !?
----- --- ---
-- --- --- ---
- - --- --- ---
-- --- --- ----
----- --- ---

quote: I don't know of any civ where I would choose a female leader as one of the two most important/interesting ones.

Victoria, Catherine the Great, Cleopatra, Boadicea, Gunnhild and Dido spring to mind...

Tonic, Legend, and maybe fact also, has it that during President Wilson's stroke that his wife was actually making the decision in his name. The general public just wasn't informed of his condition.

OK, let's give Oogkloot's post the serious reply that it deserves:

quote: Firstly, replacing the Sioux Civ with the Incas.

I've done that also! I agree.

quote: I'm also thinking about replacing the Carthaginians.

Uhm, like I said in my previous post...

quote: I also replace the SETI Program wonder with the Internet

Makes a lot of sense. I think that Civ is showing it's age here. We can probably expect the internet making an appearance in Civ III.

quote: I also replace that ghastly purple shield color.

That's a matter of taste. I like purple, it's the colour of kings and Prince. (the artist formerly known as 'symbol')

quote: I've also changed all rulers in rules.txt to male rulers

Everybody's been over this one already. Some female rules that appear in the game seem a bit forced indeed, and are really only there to provide players with the option of playing as a woman. (Livia, and, uh... oh well, they're not important anyway).

quote: Since it's ridiculous to have alpine troops defending cities, I changed their defense value to 4 and their attack value to 6.

Alpine troops suck! When you make use of their one redeeming factor, moving through heavy terrain, they hardly have any attack value left. Maybe their movement factor should be changed to two. Then you can still attack after you're done skiing through the countryside.

quote: I'm also thinking about replacing the Carthaginians with something else, maybe the Dutch.

A very wise thought. Male should be "William III" I think, female should be "Wilhelmina", or if you choose a second male instead of female "William the Silent" (Willem de Zwijger). And make their titles under republic "Stadtholder" (Stadhouder), under Democracy "Minister-President". Under fundy it should be "Bisschop" (Bischop), under Despotism "Duke" (Graaf).

And the colour is already good, orange. Just take some cities from an atlas and add them in the cities.txt too.

Anything but Americans. Why? It offends my sense of history. Americans (of which I am one) are an offshoot of the English, and (in game terms) a late offshoot at that. The starting tribes should represent cultures that have at least several thousand years of history behind them.

quote: Originally posted by Hasdrubal on 07-27-2000 07:58 AM Victoria, Catherine the Great, Cleopatra, Boadicea, Gunnhild and Dido spring to mind...

I use Churchill instead of Victoria, Lenin instead of C. the Great, Vercingetorix instead of Boadicea, Leif Eriksson instead of Gunnhild (not a very good one I admit), and Hasdrubal (the ancient leader, not you) instead of Dido (isn't Dido completely fictional anyway? I could be wrong there though)

Some counter-examples (reasons to change labels.txt and rules.txt)
Ishtari, Amaterasu and Nazca are goddesses not leaders IIRC (I use Nebukhadnezar, Hirohito and Cuauhtemoc respectively), and therefore not at all appropriate for Civ2. I already mentioned Livia (there are about two hundred leaders I'd put there before her). IIRC Hippolyta wasn't even Greek.

And I'll give you my reasons for changing the Carthaginians to the Dutch: firstly, as Allard said, the orange color fits them better; secondly, I'm Dutch myself; thirdly, the Carthaginians tend to behave like bastards in Civ 2; fourthly: nothing personal Hasdrubal but I just don't like Carthaginians.

Emperor Oogkloot the Somewhat Acceptable, One-Man Civilization and Bouncing Corpse (not really but I think it sounds nice)

quote: Originally posted by tonic on 07-27-2000 08:41 PM In modern times, Thatcher (however much one may hate her conservative politics), Cori Aquino of the Philippines, Bandaranaike of Sri Lanka (formerly Ceylon), "Ang San Su Chi" (phonetically transcribed, check spelling later) of Burma, Mary Robinson of Ireland and NZ has one currently (Janet something?)

I never use any of these civilizations except for the English, and for the English I use Henry/Churchill/Cromwell (don't remember which two of the three)

Dr.Oogkloot
Look I'm a NONE Settler!

quote: Originally posted by Dr.Oogkloot on 07-29-2000 06:31 PM isn't Dido completely fictional anyway?

Dido is a true historical character. Even though most stories surrounding her are myth or fiction (Virgil), there is no doubt that she did indeed exist and founded Carthage.

quote: the Carthaginians tend to behave like bastards

Go Carthage! There used to be a lot of sayings about Cartaginians in Ancient times. One of them made it into English: A Carthaginian Peace -> a peace with particular harsh conditions on the defeated party.

quote: I just don't like Carthaginians.

As for great female rulers: again, history is up to its 'eyeballs' with fine examples.

quote: Originally posted by Dr.Oogkloot on 07-29-2000 06:31 PM PS If anyone reading this has not replaced Sioux with Incas please post here, I'd like to know why not. PPS The Celts are another candidate to be edited out IMO

***

Dr. Oogkloot:

Well, I haven't replaced the Sioux with the Incas. Why? Because I really don't feel like it. Besides, IMHO, the Sioux are supposed to representative of the North American tribes in general. Also, I think the Aztecs are supposed to represent Central and South American cultures in general.

**shrug** Whatever floats your boat, though. That's what makes Civ II such a joy to play — its accessibility and ability to alter things is amazing (unlike C:CTP).

CYBERAmazon

Get FreeCiv ported over to the Macintosh platform! Until then, I stuck with a measly 14 nations .

BTW, what engine is FreeCiv based on? Civ I or Civ II?

well I kinda respect the mongols . anyway , why aren't gray and purple two different colours ?

P.S.

americans out . ( sorry )
Incas in .
celts out
zulus in but please get another civ to southern and central civ .... like ethiopians.

arabs in , of course . ( could be implimented with that nomadic idea , as well as mongols, coz their starting point is mekka , in the desert , an oasis .

russians as always
atzeks as always
romans as always , but they never grow up to be an empire in civ , actually .

Native americans , not sioux , and they should be that kinda nomadic civ. and they could resist the upcoming atzecs from the north .

turks : I dunno .

Hebrews : oh I am tempted but between babilonians , egyptians , arabs and Persians?

well I guess they'll have to raise the map resolution , if you know what do I mean.

coz it's kinda hard to place 280 million ppl ( I bet there is more )in the middle east on 21 tiles . I barely get size 35 city .

quote: Originally posted by Hasdrubal on 07-29-2000 07:35 PM As for great female rulers: again, history is up to its 'eyeballs' with fine examples.

Name just one. (And note that not every leader is a great leader)
As for the eyeball thing: apparently you speak Dutch?

Dr.Oogkloot

quote: Originally posted by CYBERAmazon on 07-29-2000 11:10 PM *** Dr. Oogkloot: Well, I haven't replaced the Sioux with the Incas. Why? Because I really don't feel like it.

It only takes a few minutes to change it...

quote: Besides, IMHO, the Sioux are supposed to representative of the North American tribes in general. Also, I think the Aztecs are supposed to represent Central and South American cultures in general.

Well, I tend to see every civ only as that civ itself instead of as representing multiple civs; and even if you look at it that way, I still think the Middle/South-American tribes deserve two representatives and the North-American tribes zero.
By the way did I mention that the Sioux city names are silly?

Emperor Oogkloot the Somewhat Acceptable

Good civin'

------------------
____________
Scouse Git[1]

I've already customized my RULES.TXT file to suit my needs. Suffice to say, many things have been changed to enhance realism. I decided to keep the tribes as is because it was geographically balanced (although something in Australia and South America would've been nice ... could have been accomplished by adding three more nation choices ... Incas, Aborigines, and Barbarian).

I beg to differ about no representation in North America. There were many great Indian nations — the Sioux, Cherokee, Anasazi, Mohawk and others. Sioux names were derived from place names, mainly. Not actual settlements since they were a nomadic people after being driven from the woodlands of Wisconsin and eastern Minnesota.

About them Carthaginians ... gee, they were conquered over 2000 years ago. Do they *really* count after so long?

quote: Originally posted by CYBERAmazon on 07-31-2000 08:35 PM Dr. Oogkloot: I've already customized my RULES.TXT file to suit my needs.

There's no reason you can't customize it even further.

quote: I decided to keep the tribes as is because it was geographically balanced.

Having one civ in North America, one in middle and one in South is more geographically balanced than two in North, one in middle and none in South

quote: I beg to differ about no representation in North America. There were many great Indian nations — the Sioux, Cherokee, Anasazi, Mohawk and others.

The Incas were much greater than any of those IMO, probably greater than all of them combined too.

Emperor Oogkloot the Somewhat Acceptable

Bortei (who?) vs Timur Lenk
Jeanne d'Arc vs Napoleon
Maria Theresa vs Bismarck or Hitler

***
Having one civ in North America, one in middle and one in South is more geographically balanced than two in North, one in middle and none in South
***

That depends. In my case, I am using a different Earth map than the one supplied with the game and, secondly, I've done some slight relocating to reflect a more "genuine" appearance.

Good luck convincing others to make your recommended changes .

And it gets worse if you throw in some Americans, under the magnificent Despot, Abe Lincoln.

So I've been using Random maps, and progressively changing the names of the Civs, along with the names of thie cities. that way, I get Civs on the board who have no connection to known history, something I find a bit easier to work with.

quote: Originally posted by Jim W on 08-01-2000 10:42 PM Is this the place to bring in my pet peeve, such as Romans and Babylonians running around on the same map, when in actual fact the Babylonians were long gone Charlie when the Romans got started?

kind of makes you wonder if the producers of shows like "Xena, Warrior Princess" have been playing too much Civ II, doesn't it. I mean with Xena leading the Amazon Greeks up against Ghengis Khan of the Mongols and then next episode against Livia of the Romans

------------------
April Cantor: Sire, in order to expand further we must first gain favor of the King

SCG: darn, I've never really got the hang of that tribute thing, guess it will be a long time until i make prince

quote: Originally posted by Jim W on 08-01-2000 10:42 PM Is this the place to bring in my pet peeve, such as Romans and Babylonians running around on the same map, when in actual fact the Babylonians were long gone Charlie when the Romans got started?

I don't see this as a problem. Civ 2 is not supposed to represent history exactly; think of it as a nice what-if.

Dr.Oogkloot

Second, I like having the American civ. I have enough trouble remembering where my cities *are* without having to learn entirely weird city names.

Third, "purple": Purple is OK, navy is OK, just not both of them. They are too similar. I've injured more than one ally (or allowed an enemy to wander around) that way. Change one of them to pink or magenta.

Fourth, I don't have any problem with female leaders. I even use one myself sometimes. Heck, I'd use Marvin the Martian sometimes, if the graphic was available.

------------------
Proud participant in GameLeague...

quote: Originally posted by cavebear on 08-03-2000 06:49 PM First, I don't alter my rules.txt. I occasionally host, and I think it is unfair to present players with unfamiliar civs/units/battle factors.

Use two rules.txt files: one for single player games (with modifications), one for when you host games.

By the way: no one is posting here anymore, does that mean:
a. I've convinced everyone (except cyberamazon) (yeah right)
b. Everyone is bored with this topic
c. Something else?

quote: Originally posted by SCG on 08-09-2000 08:38 AM I'd guess people decided it wasn't worth an extended discussion over.

IMO if anything is worth an extended discussion over, it's making changes to Civ2.

quote: I personally fiddle with the city/rules.txt files periodically whenever I feel like playing some different civ or subculture not listed, whether it is the Inca's, the Austrians, the West Virginians or whoever

quote: In general I'm happy with which civs/leaders that were provided, and yes there are places I would have prefered something different (I have a certain affinity for playing Stephen I of England (1135-1154) ), but I'm not going to try and convince everyone else that my way is the only way. Its a game after all, and who am I to try and interfere with someone else's enjoyment of it

I never said my way was the only way...but I do think it is a better way, and if it isn't, I would like to know why. I'm not trying to interfere with anyone's enjoyment with the game...just giving my opinion...you don't HAVE to follow it.

Chieftainissimo Oogkloot