|
The problem with all of these alternative names is that they sound like crap because they are trying to hard to be PC and accurate.
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2012 18:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 08:46 |
|
|
Wiz posted:That's an interesting idea. I'll consider it. Yeah. No need to mess around creating new tags, just some kind of system of flipping the unciv nation's culture over.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2012 18:56
|
|
|
Well, the upside is that a 70 wargoal goal doesn't leave room for much else. If AI Russia decides to invoke it, A. they wouldn't be able to get anything else from us, realistically, and B. it wouldn't be all that hard to stay above -70 warscore and wait for them to get bored and frustrated.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2012 18:57
|
|
|
How about 'Decentralised'?
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2012 18:57
|
|
|
Fister Roboto posted:I thought that it was hardcoded that uncivs couldn't build factories on their own. How did you get around that? Keisari posted:For example, I'd like an option to just simply change the colonization target country's primary culture to what mine is and then make it a puppet. Essentially a colonial regime sort-of thing. I really hate to micromanage my colonies.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2012 18:58
|
|
|
Wiz posted:Really not a fan of those names. They're just really really dull and don't feel at all thematically appropriate in the game. If noone comes up with a better alternative, I'll just have to be a bit imperialist I guess. Maybe you could use Despotic (or possibly feudal) Monarchy for Unciv. Monarchy and Tribal Federation for Unciv. Tribalism? I know I'm just borrowing EUIII governments but I think it works for giving the Unciv. governments unique names without using awkward words like Uncivilized. I know you're just using the name for thematic reasons and to keep it easy to at a glance be able to assess how developed a nation is by just looking at its form of government, but I still think it might be better to just avoid the word uncivilized as much as possible. Wiz posted:A look into the future?? Oh awesome! I remember playing games of V2 where France gets overthrown by Anarcho-Liberals and instead of spreading their revolution across Europe.... they sat around until pressure on the government caused them to bring back voting and a conservative party was voted back into office, ending the revolution  .Will Fascist, Communist, and Anarcho-Liberal governments also get CBs to spread the revolution, or only Revolutionary X governments?
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2012 18:58
|
|
|
theblastizard posted:The problem with all of these alternative names is that they sound like crap because they are trying to hard to be PC and accurate. I think the real problem is that modern Western states have a whole lot in common and can be easily classified into just a handful of types. Whereas pre-modern pre-colonial societies are/were far more diverse and unique, so it's very difficult to come up with a single word or label that can be applied to dozens of these entities in a remotely accurate way. The political organization and technology toolkit of the Zulu did not much resemble the political organization and technology toolkit of the Australian aborigines.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2012 19:00
|
|
|
"A society about to get horribly hosed by Europeans" "A society trying not to get horribly hosed by Europeans" "European society"  e: vvvv I like this idea. my dad fucked around with this message at 19:05 on Nov 13, 2012 |
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2012 19:00
|
|
|
Instead of using imperialist civilizations terms, couldn't you use terms like Non-Industrial or Pre-Industrial? That way they actually describe the mechanics of the categories, rather than some vague notion of what it takes for a country to be modern or civilized. For that matter, why is Monarchy some magical gateway government? How about having at least Pre-Industrial Monarchy and Pre-Industrial Federation, for starters. I'm sure there's one or two other possibilities for government types for industrializing nations to cover everything from dictatorship to fully democratic states.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2012 19:01
|
|
|
my dad posted:"A society about to get horribly hosed by Europeans" Hey now, several non-European countries engaged in some Imperialism of their own at this time. Everyone knows about Japan, but even states like Ethiopia tried conquering places they didn't have an ethnic majority populace in (The entire Eastern half of Ethiopia is Somali Muslim, they didn't just get there by chance). I think the naming and civilizing system is fine; it's a game and I seriously doubt anyone on these forums is going to be influenced into thinking Imperialism was any better than it was because "Uncivilized" and "Civilized" are getting thrown around.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2012 19:06
|
|
|
GoatLord posted:Instead of using imperialist civilizations terms, couldn't you use terms like Non-Industrial or Pre-Industrial? That way they actually describe the mechanics of the categories, rather than some vague notion of what it takes for a country to be modern or civilized. Well, there's always what we use today: Undeveloped, Developing, and Developed Society.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2012 19:10
|
|
|
Wiz please feel free to ignore all these suggestions if they would delay the next update by more than an hour. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2012 19:12
|
|
|
theblastizard posted:The problem with all of these alternative names is that they sound like crap because they are trying to hard to be PC and accurate. They're a flavourful abstraction of foreign policy terms, much like how EU3 uses "vassal" to represent a billion different relationships only a few of which were the historically accurate feudal oath of vassalage, or how CK2 has every court consisting of rigidly defined Chancellor, Marshal, Steward, Spymaster, and Chaplain positions. Is that how things actually worked? gently caress no, but those words help give a player who isn't familiar with the time period a rough feeling for the power dynamics of the era. "Uncivilised / designated fuckee" vs. "Civilised / designated fucker" splendidly performs the same job with regards to the nineteenth-early twentieth century. IMO: don't sweat it, Wiz.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2012 19:13
|
|
|
I'm not sure why you guys are getting all upset about the sneering designation of non European civilizations as uncivilized in a game based entirely around Europe vigorously molesting the rest of the world in a ruthless race for power.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2012 19:18
|
|
|
Fuligin posted:I'm not sure why you guys are getting all upset about the sneering designation of non European civilizations as uncivilized in a game based entirely around Europe vigorously molesting the rest of the world in a ruthless race for power.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2012 19:22
|
|
|
Crazy Joe Wilson posted:Hey now, several non-European countries engaged in some Imperialism of their own at this time. Everyone knows about Japan, but even states like Ethiopia tried conquering places they didn't have an ethnic majority populace in (The entire Eastern half of Ethiopia is Somali Muslim, they didn't just get there by chance). Hey, look at this guy who doesn't know how the human brain works. And who thinks only white people will read this LP I guess.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2012 19:28
|
|
|
Personally I have more problem with "kingdom" than "uncivilized". It's not the PC-ness or lack thereof, but the wildly incorrect designation of all non-modernized states as being kingdoms.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2012 19:30
|
|
|
Fuligin posted:I'm not sure why you guys are getting all upset about the sneering designation of non European civilizations as uncivilized in a game based entirely around Europe vigorously molesting the rest of the world in a ruthless race for power. Eh, on the one hand this game is ultimately about a time period where European Superpowers became the dominant political force of the world and so having the names for governments be from a European Imperialist perspective kinda makes sense, but it just feels kinda awkward to have nations with a form of government called "Uncivilized X". Yeah it's not Wiz/Paradox saying "these people are backwards savages", it's just describing how the government system would be classified by Europeans (like how any nation in the world can be a Prussian Constitutionalism, not because any nation in the world can become Prussian, but because any nation can have a form of government that would make a European politician go "You know, that kinda looks like what the Prussians have going on more or less") but still, it'd be nice if it the government names were less focused on how backwards the nations were perceived by Europeans and more a description of how the government functions (like how calling Russia an Absolute Monarchy tells me more about their government than calling it a Civilized Monarchy does).
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2012 19:32
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:"Tribalism" doesn't seem as negative to me, but it still implies a lack of organization that is incorrect for pretty much any human population united enough to be considered a nation-state in the first place... which seems to be the basis we're working from in this game.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2012 19:34
|
|
|
I really think the "development" terms we use today would work just fine. Admittedly the Victorian Europeans have a lot to do to reach our modern standards, but it's all relative anyway. By pairing it with the term "society" it also wouldn't make any judgments or qualifiers on what sort of government is or isn't in place.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2012 19:41
|
|
|
We should just make up words that have zero meaning attached to them so nobody gets offended. England is a flivpnydr nation, while Ethiopia is a rbnmsxxxzz nation.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2012 19:58
|
|
|
AJ_Impy posted:How about 'Decentralised'? Decentralised Monarchy sounds a little off though. Maybe "Decentralised Tribes" and "Tribal Monarchy"? The people suggesting things like "developing" or "pre-industrial" seem to be forgetting that this isn't a status like civilised is in the vanilla game, it's a government form. So having a government type as "pre-industrial" doesn't really work because it's describing the society, not the government. Reveilled fucked around with this message at 20:02 on Nov 13, 2012 |
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2012 20:00
|
|
|
Bobbin Threadbare posted:I really think the "development" terms we use today would work just fine. Admittedly the Victorian Europeans have a lot to do to reach our modern standards, but it's all relative anyway. By pairing it with the term "society" it also wouldn't make any judgments or qualifiers on what sort of government is or isn't in place. Eh, I think that is starting to be too anachronistic. "Modern" was a word that existed and was used to divide societies into categories in Victorian times, but I can see how it's overly clinical. Borrowing EU3 government types might be the best idea so far. Remember, most of the prominent African states have been trading with Europeans for about 3 centuries now, directly or through intermediaries; West Africans and East Africans also were hooked into Islamic trade routes long before that, which brought Islam and its legalistic foundation for the state into several areas as well. It's conceivable (if unlikely) for, say, Sokoto to pull a Japan and modernize under human control, so we aren't talking exclusively about "designated fuckees". For that matter, Japan really is not a "designated fuckee" but it is an unciv. Reveilled posted:Decentralised Monarchy sounds a little off though. Maybe "Decentralised Tribes" and "Tribal Monarchy"? Japan was a tribal monarchy? This gets into the issue of needing a bunch of different government types for uncivs, which makes a lot of work for Wiz. Edit: quote:Bulgarian The best option. I would love to see Steppe Wolfe: Victoria - in 1250, Old Great Bulgaria spheres the Byzantines and eventually integrates them as a colonial state. Jazerus fucked around with this message at 20:27 on Nov 13, 2012 |
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2012 20:02
|
|
|
Fister Roboto posted:We should just make up words that have zero meaning attached to them so nobody gets offended. England is a flivpnydr nation, while Ethiopia is a rbnmsxxxzz nation. But, but, everyone will start arguing about who gets to be xyzzy and then we'll never get an update from Wiz.  e: wukkar posted:Bulgarian This. Forever. my dad fucked around with this message at 20:23 on Nov 13, 2012 |
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2012 20:05
|
|
|
Bulgarian Almost Bulgarian Not Bulgarigan
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2012 20:15
|
|
|
GoatLord posted:Hey, look at this guy who doesn't know how the human brain works. And who thinks only white people will read this LP I guess. Please take your soapboxing to e/n.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2012 20:23
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:Wouldn't this run into the problem of the "puppet" mechanic in V2 being really useless? To get any sort of benefit out of the whole deal you'd have to make the country your sphere-ling first, but you'd already be doing that under the new colonization system. AI Puppets always join your wars, puppetry is worth more than a sphere. They also, to my knowledge, always accept alliance offers, which improves relations which makes it easier to keep them in your sphere. Basically I wish that just to cut down micromanagement during wars. I'd really like to focus fighting on my home front and let my colonies fend for themselves. They can raise their own armies and defend themselves, and maybe even help me out, but it's a bit of a bother to micromanage their armies and ship them out to my home fronts and back. Plus I just have a weird attachment into having AI vassals help me out. Yes, I do enjoy Ck2 a lot for this reason.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2012 20:25
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:I think it's mostly guilt over how Paradox treats uncivs in V2 and native/New-World nations in EU3. It's not enough to mod the game such as a white man with a machine gun cannot run roughshod over tabula rasa Africa, the new game mechanic names must also be that PC.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2012 20:48
|
|
|
This argument has somehow managed to become more tedious and dumb than flag chat. Think about that.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2012 21:12
|
|
|
Bulgaria Serbia Fourth Rome.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2012 21:17
|
|
|
Riso posted:Great Old Bulgaria Fixed that for ya. my dad fucked around with this message at 21:41 on Nov 13, 2012 |
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2012 21:36
|
|
|
Dr. Tough posted:This argument has somehow managed to become more tedious and dumb than flag chat. Think about that. I just thought uncivilized was kinda a bad word to use for describing governments so I thought using names from EUIII might help, since describing a monarchy as uncivilized was less descriptive than calling it tribal or despotic.I mean, this being V2, if Wiz designed it right (which I am very confident he did given his past work), those nations will either modernize into better forms of government or get annexed/puppeted soon enough anyway so I guess it's mostly moot but what else will I complain about until we know if Azeri won or lost the war with Russia  ?E:VVV You big meanie, I want to believe Azeri can force the Russian bear to dance for it in a dance of friendship and tolerance
burnishedfume fucked around with this message at 21:47 on Nov 13, 2012 |
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2012 21:43
|
|
|
DrProsek posted:I mean, this being V2, if Wiz designed it right (which I am very confident he did given his past work), those nations will either modernize into better forms of government or get annexed/puppeted soon enough anyway so I guess it's mostly moot but what else will I complain about until we know if Azeri won or lost the war with Russia It lost, we are a democracy now, it's time to start spreading the revolution.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2012 21:45
|
|
|
Based on reading way too much loving Victorian colonialist and Orientalist literature, i think it'd be best to go with "Barbarian" and "Uncivilized." This allows the flexibility of having, say, "Barbarian Republic" or "Uncivilized Despotism" so that you aren't limited to only two non-civilized government types due to grammar, and using "Barbarian" takes us so over the top that only the most tumblr of idiots could really be offended. The most important part of these designators is really how much European society at large gives a poo poo about whether or not the state in question gets annexed, so trying to make them match up to the technical terms that historians prefer really obscures the insane racism inherent in the fact that people are A-OK with you turning Mali into a slaughterhouse.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2012 21:53
|
|
|
my dad posted:Fixed that for ya. Well yes, but I didn't want to break my fingers typing it. Alternatively: Barbarians - Noble Savages
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2012 21:56
|
|
|
Tulip posted:Based on reading way too much loving Victorian colonialist and Orientalist literature, i think it'd be best to go with "Barbarian" and "Uncivilized." This allows the flexibility of having, say, "Barbarian Republic" or "Uncivilized Despotism" so that you aren't limited to only two non-civilized government types due to grammar, and using "Barbarian" takes us so over the top that only the most tumblr of idiots could really be offended.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2012 22:02
|
|
|
I just hope that there's no weird colonizing going on. If African peoples have tags, how do you prevent Europeans from expanding half a century early? Did the infamy costs for protectorates get boosted?
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2012 22:29
|
|
|
Hazmat Sam posted:I just hope that there's no weird colonizing going on. If African peoples have tags, how do you prevent Europeans from expanding half a century early? Did the infamy costs for protectorates get boosted? In V2, you can't invade a country without a CB like in Crusader Kings 2, so I'm guessing Wiz removed any blank check CBs for invading African nations at will and now you either need to sphere them or use the justify war mechanic introduced in A House Divided to fabricate justification to take over African nations.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2012 22:33
|
|
|
WhitemageofDOOM posted:It lost, we are a democracy now, it's time to start spreading the revolution. What? Where did you get that from?
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2012 22:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 08:46 |
|
|
Tulip posted:Based on reading way too much loving Victorian colonialist and Orientalist literature, i think it'd be best to go with "Barbarian" and "Uncivilized." This allows the flexibility of having, say, "Barbarian Republic" or "Uncivilized Despotism" so that you aren't limited to only two non-civilized government types due to grammar, and using "Barbarian" takes us so over the top that only the most tumblr of idiots could really be offended. Well hell, if we're trying to be more un-PC in order to be more PC somehow, then forget about "Barbarian" and just go ahead and use "Savage". It's what Europeans were actually calling native cultures at the time anyway. So you've got "Uncultured Savages," and then "Subservient Natives." Combine with government type. "Uncultured Savage Republic," "Subservient Native Despotism", etc.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2012 22:45
|
|