Lets make this clear.

Civ is a different game.

A game that covers say the 6 years of WW2 should show distinctive national chareteristics. The unique qualities of say the British army in 1945 were 95% determined by what Britain and its army were in 1939.

A game that covers the 300 years of EU shoudl also show distinctive national charecteristics, though less so. What england was in 1792 was heavily influenced, lets say 60% by what england was in 1492, though clearly much was contingent.

A game that covers the 1000 years of history covered by Age of KIngs has less basis for such things - was better english use of archers at Crecy really determined in 500 AD? Probably not. Probably only, say 25% of what England was in 1492 was determined in 500AD

FOr a game that covers 6000 years of history there is little historical rationale for such charecteristics. At most say 10% of what Enlgand was in 1900 was determined by anything in 4000 BC. possibly only zero.

Lessons from games with shorter time spans dont apply. Lesons from fantasy or sci fi games dont apply.

LOTM

A game that covers 6000 years of history there

As it is, multiple threads on the same issue is merely SPAM, and this thread should be closed down.

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui on 05-06-2001 10:47 PM This really should be in the other threads. As it is, multiple threads on the same issue is merely SPAM, and this thread should be closed down. (In my opinion, of course ).

I thought that each of these was a different (dare i say unique) take on the issue, justifying a seperate thread. What you say MarkG? I gladly defer.

At the start monkeys are smart and curious, tigers more agressive, and cows well are cows. Each civ should have an early tendency and then as the game goes along begin to take on characteristics. Near the ocean, more people will fish and travel by sea. Do a lot of trade, people will like to trade. Win a couple of early wars and your people become militaristic. Many more examples possible.

quote: Originally posted by MarkG on 05-07-2001 07:43 PM you do realist of course that this engine is half the game in black&white(the other hald being controlling your people, at least from what i have seen during a few hours on a friend's house) meanwhile, the unique characteristics of your civ are just one feature among many in civ3....

Of course, and do I think it is practical - of course not.

However, if they want to do unique civs right, they would do something along these lines where civs evolve. Until then I am against unique civs, although it isn't something that would stop me from buying Civ III.

quote: Originally posted by tniem on 05-07-2001 05:17 PM So the best solution to unique civs is to have some minor tendency at the beginning of the game. As a civ does something throughout the game it becomes more likely to have the entire populace do the same thing. Slowly this tendency grows, by modern day the tendency is deeply rooted into the civ. The empire could be taught like your character in Black and White. In fact that is how unique civs should grow like Black and White characters. At the start monkeys are smart and curious, tigers more agressive, and cows well are cows. Each civ should have an early tendency and then as the game goes along begin to take on characteristics. Near the ocean, more people will fish and travel by sea. Do a lot of trade, people will like to trade. Win a couple of early wars and your people become militaristic. Many more examples possible. Civ III should borrow the Black and White engine for how civs become unique. This would be my greatest suggestion to Firaxis and be the best soltuion to unique civs.

I like this idea better, but fear it is not the direction they are going in. It will be Germans get Panzers, to please the casual gamers.

LOTM