CIVILIZATIONS (ver1.0): hosted by LordStone1

[HolyWarrior]

I posted this previously under the "More Civs!" thread

But How many civs should we be able to choose from? CTP has 32, and I've heard some complaints that some have no business being there.
I've had to stretch to come up to 40, but here goes:
North America:
Sioux *
United States *
Aztec *
Cherokee
Canada
Mayan

South America:
Incas
Brazil
Argentina
(Not a single South American civ in Civ2? What's up with that?)

Northern Europe:
English *
French *
German *
Viking *
Dutch
Russian *
Huns
Celts *

Southern Europe:
Spanish *
Roman *
Greek *
Byzantine
Austro-Hungarian

Africa:
Egypt *
Carthage *
Zulu *
Ethopian
Ghana (The ancient empire, not the modern-day country)

Middle East:
Babylonian *
Persian *
Arab (Should've made Civ 2)
Israel
Turkish

Asia:
Mongol *
China *
India *
Japan *
Khmer (Angkor Wat)
Siamese

Oceania:
Australia
Polynesia (Two words: Easter Island)

* were present in Civ2.
So, did I miss anybody? Anyone I should leave out?

[Stefu]

My definition of Civilization in game: Nation that you could have imagined as world conquerers. So, best additions would be:

Huns
Arabs
Turks
Assyrians
Macedonians
Incas

Howewer, this would scrap at least Sioux and Zulus. Hmm. Got to consider this a bit, since this doesn't leave any civs in south-to-equator Africa.

[kmj]

1) They should have at least 32. If you haven't played with 16 or more civs, you don't know what you're missing! They should warn that it will be slower, though.

2) Don't care too much here, keep the classics. (Even though in CtP I play mostly with the canadians or australians.)

3) No! This kind of game should not have something like that! Say you have the vikings, but the random generator places them in the middle of a huge grassland. Say, midwestern usa. Well, there goes that bonus to longship capabilities. All civs should start out equal. To do otherwise would make it not a civilization game.

4) Yes. The path a civ follows is determined by it's leader. In the same way each player has his own method. They should have personality.

[Kerris]

Here some possibilities:

(Visi)Goths
Moors
Berbers
Mesopotamians
(Anglo-)Saxons
Norse
Normans
Macedonians
Cossaks
Sumerians
Anatolians

[yh30264]

I think the issue with the civs that should or should not be included, is to a certain extent dependant on whether you like civIII to be more historic or futuristic.

I prefer the historical aspects of civII, I would be quite happy to just have the timeline up to the present day, and no futuristic units.

I like the idea of amassing armies of knights or marines, or using stealth fighters.

This is because I can relate to these units... the context that these units exist is a period that I can relate to.

However a futuristic scenario doesn't appeal to me as the units are completely beyond current technology...

Consequently I prefer the ancient civilizations like the babylonians and the aztecs... I cannot relate at all to the idea of a canadian or jamaican empire or civilization.

I suppose we will just have to have a larger pool to choose from.

regards,

Glenn

[Mo]

Minor and Major civs
A major civ should be made into a minor civ if they lose a lot of cities and become small and weak. And revearsely a minor civ will become a major civ when it has a certain military power or has acheived a certain size.

[SnowFire]

Ah, how could I forget the Arabs, Swedes, and Turks?

Diodorus: That's why the minor civs do not have an expansionist foreign policy, and why a weakened major civ can get demoted to a minor civ. That situation would not happen without the 195 city minor civ being long ago promoted to a major civ.

[Andy B]

I dislike the major/minor civ. One of the grate things about civ is tha abilety to change the world.
Btw i think that the maximum players for civ3 shoud be 15.

[Andy B]

Yes let us have the Sweeds as a civ. But why not have nato and the warsaw pakt to.

And I dislike the major/minor civ. One of the grate things about civ is the abilety to change the world.

Btw i think that the maximum players for civ3 shoud be 15.

Happy gaming

[crusher]

I would want to see a alien race. It would apear from a crashing ship and start its own advanced civ. Higher tech would create this civ.

------------------
"War does not determine who is right,It determines who is left."
-Crusher-

[Harel]

I hope no one said exactly the same thing before...
I think it's that the minor/major civ's idea would be included, beacause as Lordstone said, it appears on Birth of the federation.
In that game, the minor civ's have one solar system, a limited diplomatic ability, a major trait ( they have a special ability ), and I belive you can't spy on them.
People are over complexing things. Let's try to see the minor civ's in civ II mode. Consider that as a village you opened, and got a new city.
A minor civ shouldn't be able to form a large civ of her own. That WOULD over complex the algorithem. Also, that could make too many big civ's. So what they should be?
A minor civ should control one city. A very developed city, ofcourse, with a large army. Big borders, lot's of farms and trade, etc.
But still, one city. It should have the option to merge with a large civ, any large civ. And that's it. It won't wage war ( cause then it might take-over another city, and then another... )
It will, however, bravely defend herself.
You shouldnt be able to sign treaties with her, expect trade.
The diplomacy screen with a minor civ should be: Peace / War, Ask for trade / Break trade, offer merger.
That's all.
The number of minor civ, like Birth of the federation, should be decided by the game creator ( like you select the size of the map ), however the MAX number should be as high as you can make it.
That's all.

[Utrecht]

I dislike the major\minor concept. I believe that a civ will grow to fit the definition, i.e. If a civ starts in bad location/inept government (I.e. AI) it will stay a minor problem.

However, if it grows it becomes a major power. History rewards the strong.

[Diodorus Sicilus]

Once more into the breech...

A Major Cic becomes a Major Civ because it made major contributions to Civilization (tech advances, Social advances, etc) or controlled great amounts of territory and people: all things that occur for different civilizations in the context of a game. They should not be Set in Stone before the game even starts.
As to which nations should be in the 'Starting Line-up', one absolute Prerequisite is the capability to set our own civilizations/peoples in the game. If I want to play the Iroquois League or Asterix the Gaul I should be able to crank in those titles, rename my cities as I go, and play on.

Utterly Different Subject:
One problem I foresee with Whopping Multitudes of Civs in a single game: unless you also have a Humungous Map size, you're going to lose a lot of the fun of Exploring the Map. Everywhere yo go after the first few turns, you'll find someone else is already there. Also, after a very short time, there won't be a Goodie Hut left on the map.
And, while the Humungous Map is certainly an option for those with Crays, a bigger map and more Civs means bigger files and especially, bigger Save files. Even with the consistantly speedier processors and cheaper memory, you run the risk of leaving some segment of the gaming public behind, and that hurts sales - which in turn kills game development. No matter how good Civ III is - and if they manage to work in our suggestions, it will of course be a masterpiece - but I don't want to see it be the last Civ game!

[Trachmyr]

Add Minoans!

comments:

Minor civs can only become a major civ if a major civ is reduced in status.

Minor civs should do VERY VERY little.... keep them to one city (or one region), they build a very few units for defence only... Perhaps some units can become "BARBARIANS"... but then that unit is no longer handled by minor civs.

Many minor civs will be primitive by comparison, especially in the late game... so is true with life.

Technology leakeage should be the primary way they gain tech.

Keep minor civs MINOR, this way there can be a bunch of them. They make the game more interesting, but should not slow down the game.


P.S.
I think that CIV3 should KNOW the capabilities of your computer, and at game creation give you an estimate of game performance based upon map size, players, rules, graphics & animations, ect.
The top level games should have future CPU's in mind, but allow slower ones to work as well "77% of System Resouces Used: SLOW"

[meowser]

Hi All,


I've been seeing a lot about minor civs lately and haven't thoroughly read any post on this. I was just wondering:

1. Do all minor civs have to be conquered along with the major players to achieve a conquest victory?

2. Do you suffer any repurcussion for going on a campaign of eliminating minor civs?

Thanks ahead of time

[Mo]

Minor civs should have more than one city or they will never be able to keep up with technology and then will be easily conquered. I think minor civs should have 4 or less cities and posses no nukes. They will only go to war if they're chances of winning ground are good. They should be able to merge with another civ. Either join a major civ or merge with a minor to form a major. If they have nukes it would raise them to major status because they no pose a risk to any other civ major or minor.
Minor civs should easily agree to alliances since they can be crushed by a major civ. Major civs should in return concentrate more on conquering major civs than minors. I would expect that in the latter part of the game most minor civs would have either joined a major, or have been conquered by a major, or formed a major civ either alone or by merging with another minor. Minor civs could also be formed by a city breaking off of a major civ because of civil unrest.

[Dominique]

Gentlemen, quite frankly, I absolutely can't understand all this buzz about which civ is to be included - no, really!

I'd be satisfid with just 8 civs - PLUS AN OPTION TO EASILY ADD ONE MYSELF. That's it. CIV2 was already near to it: I could give myself a name, tell the comp what's the name of my people, could even outline the titles for various governments - hey, what else do you want??? All that's needed is an option to save those names and a city list, if so desired... who cares if the Germans are in from the beginning? If they are not, I'll implant them. Fullspot.

No, what I think is more important is the thing about civs having different attributes. What I propose is having a set of personalities / advantages / disadvantages which are randomly assign for each game. A human player can pick a civ and a personality set.

Be honest, it's a bit silly to assign e.g. "aggressive" to a whole civilization and associate that with the name, isn't it? Why are the Indians peaceful? Only because there was a Ghandi? Come on...

So this would be the solution for allowing an unlimited number of civs while not offending anyone by associating "his" civ with negative attributes.



------------------
Well, if we took the bones out they wouldn't be crunchy, would they?

[Blade Runner]

Practically we can ask to get ALL Civs in the world. How many can be? 300 - 400? From the program side it is not a problem to read from the disk all this information. The only thing is to research this information about the civs or countries. i.e. I'm Hungarian. I want's to play like a Hungarian when the program just installed on my machine. Like you want to start like an American or a Beduin or anything else.

Blade Runner

[LordStone1]

<h1>THREAD CLOSED</h1>

Continue in CIVILIZATIONS (ver1.1)

[Diodorus Sicilus]

- First Post in this Thread -
Major and Minor as adjectives for Civs should come about according to how the game plays, not be a Standard Built-In Feature. If a Major Civ is defined, I for one will feel a little silly when it has two cities total in 1999 and the Minor Civ has 145!
Starting Attributes for Civs could be historical, but such things frequently are geography-dependant: the Vikings were great seafarers because they had a long coastline, lots of wood, and not enough farmland for everyone, not because the Norse are inherently seaworthy...
Instead, how about setting attributes based on starting Climate/Terrain? For instance, if the computer starts your first Settler near a desert, you might start with Irrigation as a tech Advance. Starting with a Horse or Cattle icon on aplain/grass tile, and the civ may start with Domestication Advance. Starting on an island (defined as less than X tiles of contiguous land) you'd have a jump on Ship Building or whatever the first advance that gets you off that island is.
This also raises the possibility of setting your own Civ not by title, but by attribute: give the option of not playing Polynesians, but Hot-Wet Climate Island Civ and name it the Maori and start in - more flexibility to the player, which is always (I think) a Good Thing.
As I see it, the choice is either have the game programmed so that certain Civs always start on certain terrain, or have the Initial Attributes depend on where the Civ starts, per the example above.
Choice one has a problem, in that I absolutely insist on the option of setting the nations playing, (so that, among other things, I can play an Ancient Game with Celts, Romans, Carthagenians, Greeks, etc) and if I specify a Cold Dry World and then specify a bunch of Hot - Desert Climate Civs like Assyria, Egypt, Aztecs - the computer might have a devil of a time placing them at all!
Choice Two has the problem that you can end up with some very Un Historical combinations: Vikings who are desert nomads, for instance, or Germans who are island-hopping tropical types.
What's the opinion out there - I see drawbacks with both, but I prefer either one to a PreSet definition of Major or Minor Civ and Attributes that are utterly independant of the situation the Civ finds itself starting in

[Diodorus Sicilus]

While I'm here...
If the CivIII crew is looking for an Unpaid Historian, I'm not quite Unpaid but could be for them.
Qualifications: 15 military history titles in print, guest lecturer in Military History at the ORIGINS gaming convention, contributor of scenario information to both SSI and Talonsoft games, author or collaborator on two sets of historical miniatures rules, familiar with almost all areas of military history (MA on Alexander the Great, recent writing on Soviet and German Army WWII) European Ancient, early modern, and modern history, Asian ancient and medieval military history, and American Colonial, Native, and early modern history. Some background in Ethnology and Geography, reasonably fluent in German, Russian, Ukrainian, and French.
My time is always available to make a great game even better - why else am I here?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Arab (Should've made Civ 2)

Actually, they were. Look in rules.txt! Everything for them is there (except a female ruler, I put Muhammed's daughter Fatima in there). You just have to put it in for one of the 21 original civs (I took out the Carthaginians). Same with the Incas.


------------------
Imran Siddiqui
Moderator SG Forums - www.sidgames.com/forums/ ,

"Sir, I would rather be right than be President."

-Henry Clay

[Depp]

The Minor/major civ is really interesting but it will probably be really really hard to implement.

I really want more civs and more restrictions for expansion so noone conquers the whole america before the techniology was present to achieve supplies and control.

Units should not be able to wander off to far, and, like in CTP, empire sizes should be limited both in city numbers and in amount of land.

Then you can have more civs and everyone focuse more on the neighbours and less AI calculations are required.
Then as time goes empires grows and incorprates other civs by conquest or other means.

And it should be fairly easy for countries to be divided by revolts and stuff, like it is in the real world. Everyone that grows beyond what they control either got invaded or suffered internal disputes.

And color-coding the population will give the old egypts a chance to reinstate their own land, and start their empire again.

and it goes on and on....

[Lancer]

We should be able to play with as many civs as our individual processers can handle.

If I have a Cray computer please tell me why you don't want me to be able to play with as many civs as there are countries so I can tell you where you can file your reasoning.