{The List-} Civilizations

[Nikolai]

But, important: The takeover by the Mongols and the Vikings influenced the culture of the conquered civs!

[wrylachlan]

I like the tribes idea, but instead of making the barbs have no culture, how about just making barb civ's have no bonus attributes. Through natural attrition, they'd be weeded out after a short time. And if that wasn't enough of a handicap and barbs started overrunning actual Civ's you could give them a slight production handicap.

[Mercator]

But barbarians overrunning real civs is a good thing! And in reality the "barbarians" remained an important force until well into the Middle Ages, at least.

In fact, new tribes should probably appear periodically (to some extent).

The disadvantages these tribes would have is that they will have very limited culture, and can't really advance much technologically.

Originally posted by Nikolai
But, important: The takeover by the Mongols and the Vikings influenced the culture of the conquered civs!

That's true. That's why I thought of that leader/golden age effect. But I'm not sure what else to do. If a barbarian empire fades away, the old civilizations shouldn't really take their place back either... I guess the conquered civs should kind of continue advancing independently of their conquerors in some way.

[Nikolai]

If we take the Mongols in the Middle East and China, they established themselves as a ruling class, but was soon absorbed into the native culture. However, they did as mentioned influence the old culture in several ways. China for example, closed themselves from the outside world, and slowly went into stagnation. But (IIRC) the barbarians managed to revitalize them before they was "absorbed".

In the Middle East, the Mongols was absorbed, but the Turks, who came after them, transformed the whole area to "their" culture. So it should be possible for the barbarians to hold power, just very seldom.

In France, the Viking invaders merged with the local populace, and made a halfway new culture. They btw, did eventually conquer England under Vilhelm(William) the Conqueror.

So; sometimes the barbarians take over the country and is absorbed in the populace(The Mongols did use the old bureucracy btw, so that after they were absorbed, the old civ was still in charge), other times the old civ is gone afterwards. This partly happened also with the Middle East after the Arabians conquered it.

I think giving the barbarians a military upper hand(this was the situation untill newer times), but low cultural influence, as mentioned. But then we have to do something with the culture flip functionality.

[POTUS]

Originally posted by MrFun


But she rocks!

But I have to be female.

[Kirastos]

Originally posted by Frozzy
Create your own civ

I'd like the ability to create a civ. Type in a name, add traits, add ruler names etc.

Why don't we do it RPG style ? Give us a hell load of points to start with, distribute them over various characteristics (like: agricultural: 1000, militaristic: 2000, scientific: 1500, environment-conscious, religious etc....) which will give you certain advantages and you can improve these characteristics throughout the game (like if you build lots of farms you get more experience in agriculture; if you conquered two continents in less than half a century, you get to a militaristic level when all new units are produced with a +5 morale; etc.). And that will be your own civilization.

And if you're like me and can't make up your mind as how to distribute the damn points, you could choose a 'real world' civ with an all-made-up-just-for-you distribution. Come to think of it, it's exactly the way it's done in Empire Earth, but in that game it was quiet annoying because there were dozens of things to choose over a great laps of time. Here I'm just talking general characteristics.

[Kuciwalker]

ewwww

That makes everything seem weird. If you want to "create your own civ", choose one of the premade ones and change the names (you could do this in C2 and C3, though I don't know about C1).

[Nikolai]

You could, but it wasn't really that obvious. In the DOS version, you had to highlight a civ, hit backspace(without clicking on any of the civ names) and write in the new name in the box that came up.

[Kuciwalker]

However, wouldn't that belong in the User Interface thread

[Nikolai]

You brought up that specific part of the discussion!

[DarkCloud]

-Nikolai,
about the civ-leaders suggestion that you culled from the Civ III list, I think that it's good but that we should refine it for this list
Basically, what I was thinking was that the leaders could work much like they work in Europa Universalis...
Each Civ would have an infinite number of leaders that possess certain traits such as:

Admistration (1-5 Star) [Increases Tax Efficiency, Cheapness of Buildings, Reduces Corruption]
Military (1-5 Star) [Increases Cheapness of Units, Reduces Penalty for War and Distance from Home city]
Diplomacy (1-5 Star) [-25%,-10%,0%,+10%,+25% Relations with all computer civs; Decreases the cost for purchasing merc units from other civs, Allows you to transgress borders for an extra 2-3 turns]

Some of the leaders can be historical, but perhaps there are not enough famous generals/politicans for every time period in every nation, therefore a random name generator will be necessary for the game.

I believe that this will add a lot to Civ-strategy.
However in contrast to the List's previous suggestion, I would like to posit forth that these 'Leaders' should not be able to "run the civilization" for the player since we don't want to take too much power out of the player's hands by letting the AI take over management.

LIST UPDATED!

[POTUS]

Yah. What leader do you use for America in the ancient age?

[DarkCloud]

Yah. What leader do you use for America in the ancient age?

George Washington Sr.
John Locke Sr.

Indeed- random leaders is the way to go...

[DarkCloud]

*Bumping the OFFICIAL civilizations thread so that people don't have to start new threads... as they seem to have done *

[Kuciwalker]

I think the effects of corruption need to be seriously downplayed (I'll get to how this connects to the topic in a moment). While corruption would still be there, it would be a LOT weaker, and each civilization would have an "instability number". The higher the number, the more unstable. If the number passes a critical threshold, the civ breaks into several smaller civs. The threshhold is effected by two main factors - research rate and civ size. A large civ cannot afford much research, because it would break up. Thus, large empire will eventually either a) break into pieces (though retaining its core) or b) be overrun by smaller empires that have more advanced militaries from their faster research. Those two could even be sort of combined - make significant military losses increase instability.

This would not result in the destruction of the previously large civilization, though. As the civ retains its core, it now becomes another small civilization. In addition, we could have it so that when a civ loses cities it gains some of the research of the conquering civ (this would speed up the collapse). Thus, we get a true "rise and fall of empires".

A few other things about this - first, you wouldn't get much instability from having a large nation, but rather a large empire (the difference being that the latter is formed through the conquest of other states). So having people of other cultures (and even more so people of other culture groups) would add more to your instability than people of other cultures. Second, the government you are in could modify the effects of research and size and cultures on your instability number.

Oh, and finally, Golden Ages would work differently under this. A golden age would be brought on by certain conditions in your empire, such as a powerful economy and such, and would vastly increase the critical point for the instability number (so that it's pretty difficult to collapse during a golden age). However, when it ends you've got to watch out - if you've expanded beyond the point where the critical point normally is, the end of a golden age will result in the collapse of your empire. However, golden ages don't have a fixed time (like 20 turns

[DarkCloud]

List Updated. And Continued below... This is an above-post overflow thing... Blast myself for not remembering the character limit

[DarkCloud]

---
7.0.0 Civilization Traits
---

*Perhaps One Trait should be able to fill two slots?
-Brent

*Perhaps there should be some civs that have a bonus 3rd trait?
-DarkCloud

*Some wonders of the world can either give the trait, or give opportunity to add one, or freely change the traits for some time.
-MxM

*Each civ should have like 4 or 5 or 10 special attributes out of a list of as many as they can come up with, instead of just 2
-Kramerman

*It'd be cool if resources were somehow attached to civs. Like maybe there are like 3 times as many iron deposits in the game but only a one in 3 chance of finding them, and the chance is higher for certiain civs.
Therefore if the xxx civilization had a good Mining Trait, then it could discover more iron deposits whereas the civ with the Hunting trait could only find 1, the miner would find 4... Sort of a "Search and Discover" sort of thing.)
-wrylachlan

*Or how about horses that tend to migrate towards a "horse-friendly" culture like the mongols. If there is a mongol city within 5 tiles of horses they'll move one tile every ten turns to get within their radius. Or maybe if you take care of them (irrigate their tile) they have a percentage chance of generating a second herd, and that chance is higher for the Mongols.
-wrylachlan

7.0.1 Give the AI a Target Philosophy
*Please, give the AI a target to follow. Everyone wants to win, but some civilization prefers to win by domination, others by diplomatic achievements. They should be intelligent enough to determine if their starting position makes this way of winning possible at all - starting in a huge swamp will not actually give you a huge bonus. I would have expected the Zulu, for example, to be a very aggresive people, giving you with one hand and threatening you with the other, regardless of their current strategic and financial situation.
-Cozy_22303

7.0.2 Switching Off Traits
*I couldn't care less about UUs or civ traits. Utterly meaningless fluff, IMO. So long as they give you an option to switch them off.
-Sandman

7.1.0 Specific Trait Ideas
*Authoritarian/Obedient - Cheaper courthouses and police stations. Reduced corruption. Less unhappiness from forced labor. War weariness is reduced.
*Fecund (couldn't come up with a non-pejorative sounding word. "Breeder" doesn't sound good either) - cheaper granaries. Possibly cheaper workers, settlers, harbors, aqueducts, and/or hospitals. Cities (pop 6-12) generate extra food on city square. Metropolises (pop 13+) generate even more extra food on city square). Workers possibly irrigate faster (but no other terrain improvements are faster).
*Pacifist/Green/Tree Hugger - non-military based (no barracks, units, etc.) production is cheaper (10-20%). Population produces less 10-20% pollution. Cultural improvements are 10% cheaper. Extra resources from jungle and tundra tiles. Military Morale is VERY LOW. People riot if there are more than 2 military units per city.
-sophist/DarkCloud

*Offensive/Defensive
*Sedentary/Nomadic
*Forest Dwellers/Mountain Dwellers (Ed: Personally I think this is more of a scripting issue than a civ attribute)
*Urban/Rural
*Industious/Environmental
Kramerman

*Scientific
*Religious
*Militarilistic
*Industrious
*Seafaring
*Agricultural
*Expansionistic
*Commercial
Nuclear Master

7.2.0 Altering Traits
*With each change of government, the civ can change the traits (like social engineering in AC). Example: communist revolution in Russia, made that country be militaristic, industrial, may be scientific as well.
*Different governments might allow a different number of traits
*Some of the traits should be fixed even with changes of government.
Example: Communist government must have militaristic trait, can not have agricultural trait, and can chose to other traits
-MxM

*You could possibly alter during gameplay slightly by using the SMAC-like social engineering and government: (Choosing which would give penalties and bonuses)
-Kramerman

7.3.0 Modifications to Traits
*The Scientific trait: Instead of one free advance for each age(which does little good with so few ages), I'd like to see a bonus when researching, or a bonus for scientific buildings.
-Nikolai

7.4.0 Differing Degrees of Traits' Effectiveness
*Perhaps the traits should differ in degree and effectiveness as well... For example: a civ can be VERY agricultural +++ (as in Sid Meiers Alpha Centauri) or GOOD agricultural ++ or just ABOVE NORMAL agricultural ++.
-Fosse/DarkCloud

7.6.0 Barbarian Civ Traits
*Barbarian Civs should have traits
-Brent

7.7.0 "Hardcoding" Traits
I would like the Traits to not be hardcoded. So instead of a "Commercial" trait you could simply assign different civs different bonuses, like commercial building bonuses, an extra road bonus, extra trade in the city center, etc. etc. This would allow a lot more differentiation of civs.
-wrylachlan

----
8.0.0 Civ Placement
----

*I like the idea of Civs being more at home in a specific terrain. They should tend to start in a particulat terrain and be able to use that terrain better than other civs can. I want some civs to be at home on the coasts of continents, some on islands.
-Brent

----
9.0.0 Unique Units
----

9.1.0 Unique Traits For ALL The Units of a Civ
*I'd like a lot more unit based differentiation (not UU's).
Things like maybe the inca units travel along mountains as if they were grasslands.
It still costs as much to climb a mountain or come down, but moving from one mountain to the next is just like grasslands.
-wrylachlan




Conclusion

FILL IN

Respectfully Compiled: DarkCloud
With special thanks to: Asmodean

[DarkCloud]

Overflow post 2.

[Brent]

You know what? When I actually try to list civs that I think should be in, 60 is about right. But to allow for civs suggested by others and not by me, and for greater balance, I think 100 is good for predesigned, and maybe 50 is enough empty slots.

[Wernazuma III]

Whether or not barbarians can become civs through conquest of cities, there should definitely new civs pop out during the game with strong armies, so a weak civ can really fall. Not only the Mongols, but a great variety of civs came out of nowhere. Those civs could be allowed to receive techs when conquering cities, so they can soon cope with their foes and not continue to live in the Stone Age...

[Brent]

If there are a huge number of civs, like 60 to 200, each civ has at least one available Ruler/ Special Character, you can choose to play the entire Culture Group as one Civ, and when you do, the Rulers of the smaller Civs become Special Characters you can use as Governors, Advisors, Military Leaders, Scientific Leaders, Religious Figures, etc.

Include ficticious Civs, based on some of the SMAC factions, such as a Scientific Civ, a Green Civ, a Fundamentalist Civ, etc. Maybe even use the names Miriam Godwinson, Deirdre Skye, etc.

Be able to switch to control another civ when yours dies, maybe be able to carry over the same Ruler.

[Wernazuma III]

1. Guys, I don't want to turn this thread into endless lists of civs which are to include and which not. Where should we propose further possible civs?
I have many ideas and suggestions, maybe we should make an own discussion, only on this subject. I know that "Which Civ to include" is a very touchy and emotional topic and can lead to long discussions which should be handeled seperately.
Maybe Brent or I could lead the discussion, set a maximum of civs we'll include (say 40 core civs, 30 "in queue" and 30 minors), based on the arguments in the discussion and always update the list.

2. Civil War
Could be triggered with a certain chance by certain tech advances like Monotheism, Printing Press, Democracy or Abolishment etc. or by changing government.
Two halves of the civ would be generated and split. They'd have to be in a locked war until one half again controls 2/3rds and then reunite. This would better reflect the temporary nature of most civil wars.
With one or two exceptions: All cities seperated from the capital by ocean or a certain (large) amount of tiles should be considered "colonies". When a Civil War should be triggered, the colonies would revolt and split permanently from the civ. The same goes for cities which once were conquered and are not completely assimilated.

[Brent]

I'm not interested in being in charge of anything really.

[Wernazuma III]

Maybe the controversy of how many civs and whether unique or not could be solved with the concept of minor civs.
Have one one hand side a number of premade "unique" civs and then "non-player" minor civs. Not barbarians, really independantly acting civs with the handicap that they aren't allowed to build settlers and don't have unique units etc.

[DarkCloud]

"Which Civ to include" is a very touchy and emotional topic and can lead to long discussions which should be handeled seperately

I don't see any reason for that- unless people start disputing which civ is better than another civ

I think we have a few good lists here... It's not as though we're having the disputes now that we did back in the age of Ribannah and the Civ III-Civilizations section

[Brent]

But I would want to be able to be a minor civ. This option can be thought of as a way to make the game more difficult. And they should be allowed to build settlers. Maybe three types of civs: 60 to 100 full- featured ones, 90 to 200 playable ones with no special abilities, 250 to 1000 barbarian ones that you can't be and they don't build settlers. You should be able to upgrade any of these in the editor, maybe the game should assume that you might want to.

[Kuciwalker]

Why do you need so many civs? Would you ever play all of them? What's the point of them if they don't differ at all - it's just a name, you might as well remove ALL civs for the effect it would have on gameplay. If you want a bunch, add them yourself, but don't completely remove what is one of the key components of strategy in C3 just for more random text.

[Brent]

Do we need a Number of Civs poll? I wouldn't be surprised if fewer civs wins, and I'll still enjoy the game, it won't bother me much. I get enough fun with C3C. Sky, how many nonplayable Minor Tribes do you think there should be?

If it's plausible, I want there to me no set number of slots for civs, and the original game can start with 60 and add more in expansions. Will expansions and new civs be as closely linked as in Civ 3? Would new civs in scenarios be as big a thing? I liked Civ 2 scenarios, where new civs weren't such a big thing.

[Wernazuma III]

Dark Cloud, you know "once bitten, twice shy"...
However, I've seen this kind of civilization-flame not only here, but also on CFC. My experience is that this always turns into a "mine is bigger than yours" flamefest, unless you simply keep the civs in the list out of debate.
However, I'll provide yet another list of civs, complementary to that of Brent and Stefu, as you know that I put a lot of thought on that while modding.

The ranking is very rough, don't take it too serious. To prevent any greater outcry, I take the 32 from CivIII for granted and only add to them:












North America (7)

Cherokee
Iroquois
Americans
Hopewell/Mississippi
Anasazi/Hopi/Pueblo
Sioux
+Ojibwa

Central America (5)

Mixtecs/Zapotecs
Maya
Aztecs
Olmecs
Toltecs

South America (8)

Aruak
Inca
Chibcha
Mapuche
Tupi
Chimú
Nazca
Guaraní

Africa (14)
Zulu
Egypt
Carthage
Ethiopia
Mali/Songhay
Nubians/Meroe
Haussa
Berber
Ashanti
Lunda/Luba
Bornu-Kanem
Kongo
Yoruba
Bantu

Near East (13)

Babylon
Arabs
Persia
Ottomans
Hittites
Sumeria
Israel/Hebrews
Phoenicians
Assyria
Armenians/Urartu
Kurds
Lydians
Nabateans

Middle East/Central Asia (12)

India
Mongols
Kushan
Indus Culture
Tibetans
Choresmians
Tamils/Chola
Khazars
Tocharians
Sikhs
Uzbeks
Uygurs

Far East/SE-Asia (10)

China
Korea
Japan
Khmer
Thai/Siam
Annam
Javans
Malayans
Champa
Arakan/Burmese


Europe (27)
Spain
Portugal
France
Germany
England
Vikings
Celts
Romans
Netherlands
Greeks
Byzantines
Russians
Hungary
Poland
Bulgarians
Lithuania
Minoans
Etruscans
Bohemia
Austria
Serbia
Croatia
Scotland
Finland
Cordobese
Thracians
Bosnia


Oceania (2)
Polynesians
Maori






Changes:
Yoruba --> forgot that the Hittites wer already in
Bantu --> forgot that CivIII has 31 and not 32 civs, so I needed to add 79...
Bosnians --> instead of Basques
Uzbeks --> instead of Denmark
Sikhs --> instead of Palestiniens
Malayans --> instead of Sri Vijaya
Ojibwa --> instead of Latin Americans
Nazca --> instead of Sweden
Maori --> instead of Norway
Nabateans --> instead of Slovenia
Guaraní --> instead of Ireland
Champa --> instead of Sogdians
Uygurs --> somehow still had only 96 civs...
Arakan/Burmese --> somehow still had only 96 civs...
+2 far east civs, maybe in the outer parts of China. I know too little to decide: Maybe the Chiang, Nan-Chao or Hui...

That should be it, makes one hundred civs in total. That got to be enough for major and minor civs, I go to sleep. I don't have any idea if I balanced the list out on continents, but I can't do this anymore until tomorrow. I might make corrections thereafter.
Good night.

[Wernazuma III]

And yes, the number of playable civs should be softcoded, so everyone is free to add what he wants.