![]() ![]() You have a good idea of how to lower it, very little idea of how to raise it and absolutely no idea about how you stand with the other nations. Diplomacy is now like taking a shot in the dark. For a game that was made with the intention of being more diplomatic and AIs are uncommonly aggressive. My biggest complaint for this game is the very very very spotty diplomacy system. The AI is typically pretty good about picking the best places, but you can always buy up the places you really want if its going too slow. Gold allows to choose what tiles you wish to buy, while culture automatically claims tiles for you. The new method of expanding ones border is also very interesting, a combination of culture and gold. One is forced to plan ahead by timing the construction of wonders, settlers, and military units to coincide with the adoption of new policies. The removal of religion and civics will definitely annoy some, but the new system of policies is a pretty good replacement. The new culture system is also very nice. Making defeating the enemies in all situations a cakewalk. However, while the combat system is very nice, the computer never uses any tactics when attacking you. The use of hexes and the fact that only one unit of each type can be on a hex opens the game up to much more challenging combat as well as unique tactics. Civilization V is an amazing game, but it is not without its faults. About 12 of them on 2 to 4 player multiplayer games and the rest on single player. First off, as of 2 days after the release of the game I have logged 16 hours of play time. The use of hexes Having been a Civilization addict for about 5 to 6 years I feel like I can give an unbiased review. It is true, as you say, that once there were "cities" specialization did become more necessary, more varied, and increasingly complex and hierarchical.Having been a Civilization addict for about 5 to 6 years I feel like I can give an unbiased review. Even in Native American tribal life these specializations were observed. So those best suited would likely make the contribution they could do best, whether that was fashioning tools or preserving or cooking food. But there would be children to take care of shelters to build, water to carry, clothes of some sort to make, etc. ![]() Yet not everyone would be good at handcrafts (any more than we'd see today) nor would everyone be a good hunter. It's unlikely groups tolerated anyone who showed up to eat and did nothing in return. There would be an obvious benefit to alignment with a group, and individuals would have to "earn their keep" to stay. While roving bands might cause trouble, it's likely that many early groups came together for mutual welfare in sparsely populated areas. I also suspect that life (for the most part) wasn't constant conflict or war, either. ![]() Some individuals might have better aim with a bow or spear, while others came up with a better method for planting or a sturdier version of a water vessel. There will be stronger or smarter individuals. It's reasonable, for example, to assume that there were differing talents in any group. You're right, Wolfgang, it IS a guess, but it's supported by known history from later societies, aboriginal tribes that survive, and straightforward logic. What was the extent of medical knowledge or care? Did civilizations have a healer who would provide the sick or injured with a medicine of some kind such as specific herbs or plants? Were wounds cared for or treated? What were they treated with? In short, if you fell behind, you were left behind. Were physically smaller or weaker people given jobs that would fit into their physical capabilities, or were they pushed to the side, even banished? In that time period, the strong survived. Would the leader make the call as to adopt agriculture or pastoralism for the village? How strong of an authority would a leader have? The rights to banish people from the village? To assign jobs? Even to take wives, assuming the leader is male. Much like a herd of wild horses, people look to a strong leader to trust and make decisions for the whole herd. ![]() Were jobs determined by gender, the physically stronger or weaker, the oldest or youngest? What defined the leader or head of the group-the person at the top of the pecking order? Could it have been determined by the elder in the group? The strongest? The most experienced? Is there any way for us to know how these civilizations functioned? It is safe to make educated guesses that there was a social hierarchy and roles that were carried out by the more capable and suited for individual tasks, but how do we know for sure?Īn interesting question would be how these social hierarchies worked. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |