|
Author
|
|
Topic: Restarting Civs : More Realism |  |
|
DrFell
Settler
England
Sep 2000
|
 |
posted September 28, 2000 19:26
   | 
 |
 |  |
Im new to this forum so forgive me if a million people thought of this already :-) :In civ2, when a civs destroyed they always restart as a single settler unit. This is ok, but why not have more variation, theres lots of suggestions like having barbarians found a new civ when they capture cities, but why not have say, 50% of new civs starting out with no settlers but military units instead. This way, a new civ starting out like a barbarian raid does in civ2, with appropriate modern units could capture the outer cities of a large empire, possible destroying the old civ if they got lucky. This'd solve the problem of making new civs out of barbarians cos theyd be simulated by the new civ. Barbarians could still simulate pirate cities, etc. If done properly you could create a more realistic rise and fall of empires, closer to real history, come on, how many empires survived 6000 years? And the barbarians in civ2 were simply not powerful enough to capture a whole civ (most of the time). So with this idea civs in remote areas could start of with settlers, and appropriate 'civilized' techs, whereas the raiding civs would start off with militaristic techs, and a fair number of powerful offensive units. Barbarians could simulate pirates, etc. maybe if you have a revolution there is a possibility of barb units appearing (civil war?) like partisans near a city when the city is captured? What does everyone think of these ideas?
[This message has been edited by DrFell (edited September 28, 2000).] |
UltraSonix
Prince
Melbourne, Australia
May 2000
|
 |
posted September 29, 2000 01:00
 |
|
| |
quote:
rise and fall of empires
|
Oh man, don't bring this up - the guys here LOVE talking about that!  But otherwise, this seems to be a common sense suggestion:
quote:
(some) new civs starting out with no settlers but military units instead.
|
quote:
So with this idea civs in remote areas could start of with settlers, and appropriate 'civilized' techs, whereas the raiding civs would start off with militaristic techs, and a fair number of powerful offensive units.
|
But I think it should be changed slightly - new civs would have ALL the techs up the the common techs of the day. It would just be the case that sometimes (50%?), the civ starts off being more powerful than just one settler (it could maybe have some infantry).By the way, I think "barbarians" is a very inappropriate name - up to about 500AD maybe, but past that, they should have their names changed according to the tech level of the day - eg insurgents, rebels, guerillas, religious extremists, resistance fighters, and each time there is a specific "rebel uprising" like in Civ2, the rebels would all belong to something:
eg "extremist militants of the Rising Sun have surfaced near Beijing!" ------------------
No, in Australia we don't live with kangaroos and koalas in our backyards... Despite any stupid advertisments you may see to the contrary... |
DrFell
Settler
England
Sep 2000
|
|
posted September 29, 2000 18:35
|
|
| |
I dunno, my thoughts were that new civ'd capture cities from a nearby empire, thus gaining the 'civilized' techs. So it could 'absorb' the culture etc. of the old civ. e.g. the 'barbarians' who split up + destroyed roman empire 'absorbed' their technology, religion etc. although some knowledge was lost.
Maybe the 'barbarian' civs could stop with the discovery of a certain tech, eg gunpowder. After that a new 'barbarian' civ might have a higher chance of appearing near a civ in anarchy, nicely simulating rebellions, civil wars, etc. Obviously the two civs involved start off at war... | |
Apolyton Civilization Site Forums
