CIVILIZATIONS (ver2.0): hosted by LordStone1

[LordStone1]

The Big List of Ideas for Civilization III: Civilizations (ver 1.0, 1.1)
By LordStone1 (LordStone1@yahoo.com)

I. Number of Civilizations Included
II. Number of Civilizations playable in One Game
III. Special Abilities for Individual Civilizations
IV. Personalities for Individual Civilizations
V. “Civilization” Feeling in Civilization
VI. Minor/Major Civilizations
VII. Others
VIII. Civilizations suggested
Appendix I: Historian

I wish to thank Yin for setting up the whole system, and to some of my faithful visitors of this thread: Snowfire, Ecce Homo, Trachmyr, Eggman, Travathian, Freddz, Imran Siddiqui, HolyWarrior, Stefu, Darkstarr, Kmj, Diodorus Sicius, the Octopus, evilconquerer, Mo, Utrecht, crusher, Paul, NotLike Tea, CormacMacArt, Isle, VaderTwo, delcuze2, E, monolith94, Aharon Ben Rav, St. Leo, Cartagia the Great, PhotonMan, Harel, Transcend, paraclet, Kris Huysman .

I. Number of Civilizations Included

I asked how many civilizations should be included in the gaming software. But from the response elicited, this is not a real priority.

Seven civilizations from each of the ages included in the game (Travathian)

“Hundreds!” (Eggman)

As much as Firaxis can reasonably squeeze in, but it shouldn’t be a priority. (Freddz)

II. Number of Civilizations in One Game

Civ II allowed you to play with seven civilizations. CTP upped it to eight, but by tweaking the files, you could jack the number up to 32. However, from the responses, it is assumed that the general agreement is that there should be a choice ranging from three to thirty-two or more. It should be easy to change it – perhaps in the startup stage of the game.

Give the player the choice: see how their computers can handle it. At least 32 civilizations should be playable at one time. Otherwise, it is a step backward from CTP. (Eggman)

If I wanted to play with 100 or 200 civilizations, I should be able to do that. (Paul)

Have a drop-down menu ranging from 3 civilizations up to - and possibly over - 32. Include a warning message if one exceeds the number of civilizations recommended for enjoyable play according to his/her computer specs. (LordStone1)

III. Special Abilities

Civ II did not offer any civilizations any special abilities. Neither did CTP, so the only difference between one civilization and another was the color, the architecture, and the AI personality. However, SMAC had seven distinct factions, each with special abilities. We discussed whether this idea could be implemented in Civ III.


No. It may tick off people if some civilizations got slighted. There are too many civilizations anyway. (Darkstarr) There should be no individual properties for civilizations except for architecture and AI personalities. (Ecce Homo) No - what if Vikings have a seafaring advantage, but a random map puts them in the middle of a grassland? (Kmj) There should not be any difference between civilizatins among the lines of social engineering stats. This will cause unimaginable damage to the game on any number of levels. (Shining1)

Special abilities should be optional - you can turn them on or off. It also should play-balance. How about having civilizations “earning” advantages? Over a period of time, you could acquire points which you could spend on whatever particular advantage you want. (Eggman)

Give them a tech in what they specialize at the beginning of the game. (Imran Siddiqui)

Any special abilities based on civilizations borders on racism, and is clearly a bad idea. On the other hand, different civilizations in history are different from each other. So, different civilizations should have preferences, like this civ would take the Conquer option if this was a choice given. (NotLikeTea) Give them different motives, a la SMAC’s “Discover, Build, Explore, Conquer”. Perhaps, make the British strong in Math and Economics, and Greeks with Philosophy. Give them ‘focuses.’ (Snowfire)

How about this: about 1000 years into the game, once you’ve had a chance to explore around a bit, a screen will pop up allowing you to customize your civilization. However, there would be a limit of two or three items that you chould change, and each advantage has to be offset by a disadvantage. This could be made part of a larger social engineering area. (VaderTwo)

Possible Cultural/Civilization Emphasis(es) by VaderTwo:
Increased/Decreased:
-Amount of food
-Amount of shields required for units
-Amount of shields required for city improvements
-Amount of shields required for wonders
-Movement rate
-Attack/Defense factors
-Happiness
-Viewing range
-Amount of science rate
-Amount of money
-Amount of luxuries
-Attitude toward your civ by other civs
-Terraforming
-Random events (good and bad)

Have differentiated civilizations: Say, Mesopotamia has a start with a greater emphasis on agriculture, but have them decide where they want to lead their civilization. (The Octopus)

Each civilization should be very different from each other - otherwise, why choose one civilization over another? Have +1 research, -2 economy, etc. (evilconquerer)

Lump civilizations together in categories of civs, like “Warlike” would get Bronze Working while “Peaceful” would begin with Alphabet. It would be like how the white civilizations were always expansionist in Civ II, the blues more peaceful. (LordStone1)

Have them form special abilities over time - if one civilization has been warring for a very long period of time, they should begin to grow special abilities favoring them in war. If you build a lot of boats, you get better at seafaring. (Freddz, NotLikeTea, delcuze2) However, some should be exclusive. It would be dull to artificially train to be good at everything. Being exceptionally good at one thing should take up enough resources to preclude experts in everything. The “special abilities by doing” idea is a popular idea.

Have special abilities be assigned based on geographical starting positions. For example, if your first city is near a desert, that civilization can get Irrigation as their first free advance, or get +1 in farming. Build on that idea. (Diodorus Sicilus, CormacMacArt) These attributes should be limited, however, like a single tech or a +1 bonus in something. This will solve the problem of offending anyone by giving out racial attitudes. (Bell) Everyone seems to like this idea.

IV. Personalities for Individual Civilizations

One of the things you could always depend on in Civ II was that you had to squash the Mongols and the Russians immediately, since they were aggressive, expansionist, and extremely warlike. Should this be carried onto Civ III?

Each civilization should have a distinct personality. When playing on the Earth map, the personalities should mirror the real-world ones. However, on a random map, the personalities should also be randomized. (Travathian) For example, “Isabella of Spain should be a total *****” on the Earth map, but not on a random map (Imran Siddiqui)

Allow personalities to change over the course of the game. A semi-warlike civ can become a pacifist if they lose a big war. The Babylonians can become warlike if their borders are threatened. (Mo)

It would be interesting to have different personalities for one country based on whether the leader was male or female. Stalin would be more warlike, while Catherine would be more enlightened. (Cartagia the Great)

Have a randomize option on the menu like on SMAC. (Freddz)

V. Civilization “Feeling” in Civilization III

The only thing that separated one civilization from another when playing was the color of the shield and one of the four architectural options. We discussed whether this concept should be expanded, so that you get more of a civilization-ism feeling that you are playing the British, not an orange civilization.

Allow unique individuals from certain civilizations pop up as random events. For example, if you were the French, Pasteur would pop up as a random event and give you a science boost. But Pasteur wouldn’t pop up for the Aztecs. (the Octopus)

Replace color-codes with flags. Britain should fly the Union Jack, not some orange shield. (Eggman) This would help if we had 32 civilizations – more variety of colors.

Allow historical names to be used for specific units. The Japanese could have the Samurai, while the Greeks have the Hoplites, and the English their Knights. But all three would be the same unit, just different names. (Shining1)

It is important to be able to tell apart civilizations if you choose to use colors. What happns if you have so many civilizations you have to use red, maroon, chartreuse, puce, and vermillion? (Diodorus Sicilus) Implement different shield designs, like with multiple color designs like stripes, polka dots. (Eggman)

See Minor Techs in Section VII: Other

VI. Major/Minor Civilizations

Obviously, this is a very new and radical idea. People are split on this topic, but we are definitely leaning toward allowing minor civilizations. The big issue are what abilities do the minor civilizations have? Overall, this seems like a very exciting innovation and would greatly enhance the realism of Civ III.

You should consult Microprose’s Birth of the Federation team on this issue. They can probably help you out. (LordStone1)

-You start off with 6-8 major civilizations, and you can choose the settings for minor civilizations: none, same # as major civilizations, double the number, etc.
-Civilizations can upgrade or downgrade between major and minor civilizations
-Minor civilizations should have different diplomatic options and ought to be able to be colonies, client states of major civilizations, or complete integration but with a separate military structure, etc.
-The minor civilizations do not have an expansionist policy. (SnowFire)

How about, every time a city revolts, it becomes a minor civilization? (E)

-Reduce what minor civilizations can do – it will also reduce the algorithms.
-Technology leakage should be the main way the minor civilizations can receive technological advances. (Trachmyr)


-There should be a lot of minor civilizations to start out with, perhaps 16. As the game progresses, they will slowly be reduced and then there will be a group of major powers.
- Major civilizations can have one extra settler and begin their city one unit larger than minor civilizations at the beginning of the game.
-They can merge with other minor civilizations to become a major civilization.
-They can be integrated with a major civilization but have autonomy for a period of time.
-They should not attack any major civilizations unless that major civilization is very weak and they have a good chance of winning.
-Any civilization with nuclear weapons automatically becomes a major civilization.
-Minor civilizations cannot participate in the U.N. or any other similar organization.
-Major civilizations can be downgraded to a minor if they become too weak.
-They ought to easily agree to alliances with major civilizations. (Mo)

How about having them control ONE city? That city should be very developed, have a lot of farms, and wide borders. They could merge with other civilizations. They cannot wage war but they can defend themselves, and they can’t sign any treaties except for trade. (Harel)

No. If a civilization begins in a bad location or is under an inept government, it will stay a minor problem. Let history play itself out. “History Rewards the Strong.” (Utrecht)

It should be included, but not using different civilizations. If you have around 30 cultures available, you can then have 16 as majors and another 8 as minors. (Shining1)

VII. Others

Well, other stuff that didn’t fit anywhere.

Don’t always start with Despotism as your government. You should have a choice at the very beginning: Tyranny, City-State, or Tribal. (Cartagia the Great)

Colonies should be able to be built, or conquered cities could be converted into colonies. They would produce more trade and more capital, but be slightly more expensive to defend, and the people would have a better chance of rebelling than other cities. If they did rebel, they could take neighboring colonies (even some of other civilization’s colonies) and create a new civilization. (Cartagia the Great)

Make civilizations more spread out in starting positions. In Civ II, the historical starting positions sometimes put six civilizations in Europe and one in America. (crusher)

Pop in a (perhaps unpaid) historian on the team to do research into civilizations like for city names, leader names, special scientists for those random events, etc. See Appendix I. (LordStone1)

Minor Techs should be allowed – each minor tech should have a single prerequisite. The minor techs cannot be researched directly. Each minor tech is a deadend addition to the technology tree. There is a small chance of the minor tech popping up randomly between the time where the prerequisite tech is discovered and the research into the next tech. Each civilization has a few minor techs that ALWAYS occur. China will always get “Ming Vase-Making” while Greeks would always get “Rowing Cushions” and the English the “Long Bow.” With the Long Bow, you could add your range to your Archers. Minor techs could also affect city improvements, components, WoW’s.
The advantages are: (1) Interest – you don’t get them every game; (2) Tradibility – since you can’t actively research all of them, you’ll nearly always have something to trade, even with a superior culture; (3) Historial Immersion – they add an even greater depth to the historical aspects of Civ, by including important discoveries that don’t make the main tech tree; (4) Less stagnation – if it takes you 20 turns to research a tech, you have a very good chance of picking up the previous discovery’s minor tech, too; (5) Civ Differentiation – an option to automatically give minor techs to the civilization that discovered them in real life.

This shouldn’t affect the game balance in any great extent, and doesn’t imply that one race is superior in one area than another. There ought to be two per civilization, and at least one minor tech for about 80% of the techs on the tree. (Shining1)

Implement restrictions for expansions like in CTP – the government determines how many cities can exist in one civilization before problems arise. (Depp)

Civ III should be able to read your computer and figure out just how many civilizations your computer can handle. For example, there would be a message: “You have a Pentium II-266 with 128 MB memory. You have chosen 20 civilizations. Your game will be moderately slow.” Or “You have a P-III. You have chosen seven civilizations. Your game will be very fast.” (Trachmyr)

How about having a different kind of civilization in the game along with the normal, city-based one? Nomadic civs! You start with a tribe, not a settler. Tribes have a radius like a city, but they can slowly move. They exploit the terrain differently: no agriculture, but hunters in the woods, herders on the grasslands and plains. They automatically generate Warriors or other military units for the population. Certain improvements would be impossible, but they could have alternatives, such as if they had xtra food, they could put in into Increased Production fabricating things like weapons, trade goods, etc. They would be major traders, and should have an advantage in borrowing techs from settled civilizations they contact, and possibly spreading them to other civs in trade routes. But eventually, the nomad civilization would have to settle down, because Gunpowder, for example, pretty much requires permanent structures to manufacture. But they could do this either by starting their own cities or conquering a lot of other cities! (Diodorus Sicilus)

VIII: Civilizations Suggested

One of the favorite pastimes of Civ players was picking over the choices of civilizations for the game. Obviously, that tradition continues to this very day!

You must include the Arabs! They have been a glaring omission from Civ I and Civ II. (Imran, Eggman, Freddz)

Include all civilizations that either (1) deserve it or (2) are fun. (Eggman)

Include every civilization you sell the game to. (Darkstarr)

Why not have an alien race that crashes onto Earth in the future? (crusher)

They should be included on the basis of distinctiveness, geography, and greatness. But basically, I’ll be happy as long as I can include my own civilizations. (Shining1)

Some civilizations should have a higher chance of being selected than others. If I was playing with 3 other civilizations, I would certainly be disappointed if they were Luxembourg, Andorra, and Liechtenstein. (Paul, Aharon Ben Rav)

Perhaps have civilization names change over time, either in a pre-chosen direction or totally random. You could go from the Franks to the French, the Magyars to the Hungarians, the Slavs to the Serbs, Bulgarians, Russians, and so forth. But if the Franks had a lot of contact with the English, it could become the Franklanders or something.  (Cartagia the Great) Others don’t like this. It would be too complicated. (Imran Siddiqui)

Expand the roles of Barbarians in the games. Why can’t they trade? They can be like middlemen between civs. They could also become normal and start clawing for the top instead of randomly attacking cities and units. (Diodorus Sicilus)

(Ecce Homo, Shining1, HolyWarrior, Stefu, Kerris, Trachmyr, monolith94, Cartagia the Great, Harel, Transcend, Diodorus Sicilus, NotLikeTea, Imran Siddiqui, CormacMacArt)

Aborigines
American
Anatolian
(Anglo-)Saxon
Argentines
Assyrian
Australian
Austro-Hungarian
Aztec
Babylonian
Berbers
Belgian
Brazilians
Byzantine
Canadian
Carthaginian
Celts
Cherokee
Chinese
Cossacks
Danes
Dutch
Egyptian
English
French
Ethiopian
Finns
Gauls
German
Ghana
Greek
Hellenic
Hebrew
Hittites
Huns
Incas
Indian
Irish
Israeli
Japanese
Korean
Khmer
Luxembourg
Macedonian
Mayans
Mesopotamian
Mexican
Minoan
Mongol
Moors
Native American
Nigerian
Norman
Norse
Norwegians
Persian
Phoenican
Polynesian
Portuguese
Polish
Roman
Russian
Scottish
Siamese
Sioux
Spanish
Sumerian
Swedes
Tibetans
Thai
Turk
(Visi)Goths
Vikings
Zulu

Appendix I: Historian

Following the idea that a historian should be on the team, Diodorus Sicilus offered to take the position. Here is what he said:

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 in 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.

His e-mail address is: ccsfort@earthlink.net

Whew! Okay, if you got any problems with this, e-mail me, all right? Thanks!



<font size=1 color=444444>[This message has been edited by LordStone1 (edited June 17, 1999).]</font>

[Cartagia the Great]

Not really. My idea is for Civilizations, which had a ounger form, to be started in that form. The French would start as the Franks, and the Spanish as the Visigoths at the beginning, with the cities of the correct name. When the right technologies are found, these civilizations would ahve the choice to become the Civilization they changed into. The Franks could become the French or the Visiogths the Spanish. Or, if you chose, you could change thier name to something you preferd like the Franklanders, or something of that sort. City names would also upgrade at that point if you wanted to. This would be nothing fancy at all, nothing complicated, but it would add that extra touch to the game.

For Civil Wars, and I bleive there should be Civil wars and not just after your capital is taken. When this did occure the name of the new nation could be a historical one, or a randomly choosen one. I would love to see the Confederates break away from the Americans

[Ecce Homo]

Í am a bit sceptical to the thought about "evolving civs". All peoples (OK, not the Americans) have existed since the Stone Age, although they have not continuously been technically advanced and/or independent.

[EnochF]

Civilization makes a false assumption for its early game. When a civ sends out a group of settlers, and the settlers found a city, the new city is part of the original empire. In fact, this was not often the case. Settlers would indeed leave to found a new city, but only rarely would they remain politically or socially united with the original tribe. That was the whole point, really. If they wanted to remain part of the original civ, they wouldn't have wandered off, would they? It would take a ruthless despot to unite every city. Oh, but wait, we've got one: me. Never mind, then. The reason that sub-groups and things never form in Civ is because every tribe comes equipped with its own powerful, immortal dictator. Without that, you'd see the kind of dissolution of culture and language we're all familiar with. Which is, incidentally, why I'd rather like to see the demise of the Immortal Dictator angle, in favor of the Dynasty angle, in which every now and then you are notified of the death of one leader and prompted to name the next. Thus, Emperor Lincoln I is succeeded by Emperor Lincoln II, who is eventually overthrown in favor of Consul Arabas Lincoln, whose power structure is toppled by the theocracy of Abram, Bishop of Lincoln, who rules until the enlightened democracy of President Abraham Lincoln, which is then toppled in a crisis of war as Fuhrer Adolf Lincoln declares America a fascist state, and then Comrade Avram Lincoln's underground communist movement undermines the fascists, until finally President Abraham Lincoln III ushers in a new era of democracy. At each stage, you'd have the option of changing your new leader's name to whatever you wish, be it creative or silly, dignified or in aLterNaTinG cApS (yuch). Meanwhile, the other civilizations will be experiencing the same sort of thing. Every time one leader dies and another takes power, there is a chance that alliances will shift, treaties will be called into question, international relations may worse (or, for that matter, improve), etc.

[Cartagia the Great]

Your right, in one way or another, everyone has existed from the stone age. they were just part of a larger group (the Indo-European group which migrated from the Volga, of the Mass Slavic migrations) or so. Later these groups broke off and formed their own societies, and cultures, which have been elvoving up to them odern day. My idea would show case this, and allow you to change the name of your civilization at given points to reflect this change. After all the FRENCH have not been around since the Stone Age. However the Germanic tribes which eventually formed the Franks were, and the Franks then became the French.

My idea wouldn't be radical, and wouldn't do a great deal to the game except add a bit more atmoshphere to it. It would just give you the chance to rename your leader, and Civilization at certian points. It wouldn't change your ratign with other Civilizations(MABE would update City names...MAYBE), but nothing else. And you could even choose not ot do it. For instance, if you were playing the Romans and you had the CHANCE to change their name you would not have to do it, so a Roman Empire COULD, conceivably, remain intact to thel ast stage of the game. If your palying the Birtons(who would become the English..or maybe it would be the Anglo-Saxons who become English...not sure) you could change until you were the British Empire.

[korn469]

EnochF

i totally agree with you on the dyanasty idea. every so often (55-70 turns or so) your leader should die of natural causes. there could be a funeral ceremony for your old leader and a coronation/inaguration ceremony for your new leader.

also maybe make it extreamly difficult but a spy unit should be able to attempt to assassinate your current leader

i was reading about what people thought about having different SE choices for your civilization and some didn't want them or some wanted them to change over time. if you have the Social Engineering choices determined by your leader it would change whenever your heir took power. if your reign was a brutal dictatorship your heir could either follow in your footsteps if you kept the same government type. (your civ keeps the SE modifiers) or your heir be a revolutionary and change some part of the government. and by changing things your civs inherent SE modifiers would change.

educating your heir could be a cool feature in the game. determing who his teachers were (was it aristotle that was Alexander the great's teacher?) hiring a great philosopher to instill high morals in your heir, or have your heir learn at the feet of a machivelian figure. appointing him (or her for that matter) as an ambassador or if they joined the army would have an effect on what type of vision they would have for your civ

korn469

<font size=1 color=444444>[This message has been edited by korn469 (edited June 12, 1999).]</font>

[Harel]

EnochF had a good idea: dynasties are a good idea, but i doubt that "teaching" would be implamnted: it seems to be a bit more micro-manage then some are willing to put in the game: all in all, there are beter things to do.
We can however, implamnt the realistic idea of evolving civ model into the dynasty concept.

Everytime an emperor dies, every 50 turns ( or by assination )there is some chance ( depending how good he was, a bad emepror would increase the chance ) that the newer cities ( let's say, the last 20-25 turns? ) would revolt and make a new civ.
Minoun to greek, to roman, to helenism... etc. Therefor, assiniation is a good weapon, as it may remove from the enemy control on his newer cities.

Same thing when you change SE. Beside the revolts by gov replacing, you have a chance your civ will evolve into a newer type. This change won't effect anything beside your leader name and city names. If a change does accure, then the city names would start to be replaced, from the newest cities to the oldest one, in a ratio off: 20 turns = 1.
Meaning, a city created 100 turns ago would change her name after 5 turns.
The chance would be decided on how many SE you change and how drastic the change is. A democracy to republic won't matter, while a democracy transformed into a dictatorship has a good chance of evolving. If you also change market/army/goal SE, the chance also increase.

This way, we can include all the civ's along history people wants ( with polynsians, polish, hungrains, and other small civ ), remain historicaly accurate, and show how civ evolved along history.

[Mo]

Each leaders personality should be somewhat different from his predecessor. You could assasinate a warlike leader and hope a more pacifist comes to power so you can make peace.
If there are a lot of unhappy citizins in the capital there should be a chance that they over throw the current leader.

[Bubba]

I'm new to the Civ III forums so please forgive me if these are repeats:

1. IMHO it would be great if one had the ability to grant freedom to a certain number of cities so that they may form another civilization, i.e. Britain being forced through war or civil unrest to give independence to United States & India or allowing independence to highly developed nations when the time is right such as with Canada, Australia, N.Z., etc. This could be linked to government types. For example, when one changed from a Imperial government to a Democracy (with a high city distance penalty) one would have to give independence to some far off territories that were constantly revolting due to distance or high development.

2. I also like the CTP system of Ages but would like more of them (something like ANCIENT, CLASSICAL, MEDIEVAL, RENAISSANCE, INDUSTRIAL, MODERN & COMPUTER) m with city graphics that changed for each age and were different from each civilization or groups of civilizations, (Northern European, Oriental, New World, Meditarean, Near East, Native American, Indian (sub-continent), Russian & African) at least until the modern age.

3. There should be multiple Leaders (like Enoch said) that change over time for the AI controlled civilizations (at least one leader for each age if a system such as CTP was adopted). Additionally, when there is a revolution a leader should also be replaced. Each of these leaders should have a different personality that would effect the game play (Washington [no alliances, allows slavery] different than Lincoln [no slavery] who is different than Teddy Roosevelt [foreign expansion, alliances]). The number of revolutions could be dependant upon the civilization which could have a revolution variable/coefficient, e.g., it could be high for the French and lower for the British, etc.

4. For the Scenario Editor, IMHO it would be great to be able to choose territory that a given civilization would expand into first. For example, you could tell the British AI to "want" to expand into Canada & India but not to care so much about other areas or the French into North Africa & Vietnam rather than into Germany or England. The way the AI works now you can never have an Age of Discovery scenario where the European players actually try to get to the Asia & the New World, rather than just attacking one another.

[Bigcivfan]

I really like the idea of succeeding rulers. A real great game that used this concept was "Ghengis Khan". Your ruler had action points, 15 for a good ruler and 8 for a not so hot ruler, determined by his abilities. One of the possible actions each turn was to spend time with your family, and each time you did, there was more of a chance that you would have a child or improve the attributes of an existing child. When your leader died you chose a successor. Maybe if this was used in Civ III a charcter with a higher Charisma succeeds in contenting his populace and diplomatic relations with other civs are easier, while a character with a high military rating has cheaper units and bonuses in combat. A rare leader would excel in all fields and bring many bonuses(Charlemange), while players would also have to deal with inept leaders who bungled up everything and just wasted treasury money on parties and other lavish things (Nero). Also leaders might be inclined to certain forms of social engineering, being able to use some forms while recieving penalties if they used another. Many possibilities exist with this concept....

[CormacMacArt]

Ok, this "Dynasty" idea, what would my role be as player? Would this "Leader" take away some of my micromanagement? Could he declair war? I believe that this has gone off thread, but I am intreged by this idea.

[Picker]

Yes, dynasties are great. Gotta have 'em. Ghenghis Khan wasn't the only game with this idea. Romance of the Three Kingdoms, for example.

------------------
The Notorious P.I.K.
"Read my clit, not gonna do it."


<font size=1 color=444444>[This message has been edited by Picker (edited June 14, 1999).]</font>

[Picker]

Also, if you check out the units thread I suggested having officers to lead the units, various strategy ratings blah blah blah. It would be cool if you had officers and they could rebel, and found their own dynasty. This was a fairly common occurrence in the past.

------------------
The Notorious P.I.K.
"Read my clit, not gonna do it."

[Diodorus Sicilus]

Dynasties:
This has been kicked around over in the "Clash of Civilizations" threads, but most of this is my own two pence' worth...
The changing of the Dynasty should be semi-random, in that you can't really tell when someone might die off: Louis XIV lasted 80+ years, but there are many "child kings" in history who never made it past puberty.
Add a "Charismatic Leader" to the mix - occasionally the Genetic Crap Shoot sends you something completely different, either in the Dynasty or out of it. Then you get Lincoln the Great or perhaps a new rebel to peel away part of the Empire! This would be a random event, because the combination of talent, situation, and genetics is almost completely unpredictable. This would be a way to avoid the next step, which is:
Dynasties decay. There are very few that lasted more than 5 - 7 generations without degenerating into idiot incompetence, so the overall Competence level of the Dynasty will slowly erode until it's Past Time to Change. If your government type demands direct influence by the Dynast (Absolute Monarchy, Tyranny, Totalitarian Dictatorship) then the factors of the government will also go down: happiness, efficiency, etc. If you've got a government with a wider spread of people involved (Republic, Constitutional Monarchy, Democracy) then the government won't be so affected by the drooling idiot in the hot seat.
Micromanagement should be "managed" (sorry about da pun) by government type, bureaucracy or lack of it, and other factors. The Dynasty would affect how well the government handles things 'behind the scenes'. You could intervene anywhere, more directly with some types of government (see list above: dictatorships, Absolute monarchs, etc) or just let the bureaucracy and market forces run the economy while you run exploration. conquest, battles, etc. The Dynasty that throws up a Military Genius (Charismatic Leader) would allow you to put him in charge of the army with major pluses to everything it does - until his horse steps in a hole and he breaks his neck, or a sniper perforates him with a crossbow bolt.
The combination of Dynasties and Charismatics should allow you to take or delegate to the AI as much of the 'micromanagement' in various fields as you want, with a better idea of how the AI will handle things.
Remember, your micromanagement may be exactly what the next guy enjoys doing in the game...

[Picker]

That's nice, I can think of many examples of this. Napoleon, Genghis Khan, Liu Bei, etc.

------------------
The Notorious P.I.K.
"Read my clit, not gonna do it."

[Grunion]

If a leader dynasty model was developed, one of the variables could be tolerance. (or it could be a value dependant on government type.) The level of tolerance would dictate the probabilities that certain leader types would develop. A low tolerance value would mean that successive leaders would be similar, reflecting purges & indoctrination of potential leaders with different agendas (modern China & Russia). A high tolerance would allow for a greater variety of leader types (Western Europe)

[Imran Siddiqui]

Dynasty? NO! Imagine all the work needed to reseach 100 rulars of a Civ with different personalities! Some people want 100 CIVs. So 100 Civs with 100 personalities each? No way! I want this game sometime within the next 10 years!!

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

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

-Henry Clay

[EnochF]

For the record, I'm not a supporter of completely different ruling styles for leaders. Bugger that. Too much work. I just think it'd make a nice change of pace to change your leaders once in a while, for purely cosmetic purposes, to cover up what seem like flaws in the AI. For example, the Egyptians start trespassing on my territory and generally harassing me. Well, didn't we just have a treaty with them a hundred years ago? Yes, but that was under Consul Zoser of the Egyptian Republic, and now we have to contend with Comrade Tutankhamen of the People's Republic of Egypt... It would make the game feel more like history, is all. Instead of "The Spanish government has been overthrown," we'd hear, "The death of the Spanish king has left a power vacuum, and factions are warring against each other for succession!"

<font size=1 color=444444>[This message has been edited by EnochF (edited June 17, 1999).]</font>

[Mo]

Instead of modeling all of the rulers after real ones in history just have it randomly generate personalities. Some factors would affect that personality, like the personality of the preveious ruler situation of the country for the last 10 years... For names I would suggest a list of resonable sounding names for that civ from which the computer choses. If the name has already been used the computer will just add a number behind his name.

[CormacMacArt]

I don't think that I like the idea for MY civ, but maybe have it represented in the AI, by personality fluctuations depending on a random factor and present events. Thus civs that are normally rational, may become militaristic (for a while) after the loss of their capital. I guess this could be masked by the AI declairing a new leader.

[Picker]

Oh god imran, I'm not saying have a hundred different rulers, I'm just saying that you're ruler dies off. Kal Denny Pick I died off natural causes, Kal Denny Pick II was inaugarated. This kind of thing would affect loyalties, efficiency, etc.

------------------
The Notorious P.I.K.
"Natives who beat drums to drive off evil spirits are objects of scorn to smart Americans who blow horns to break up traffic jams."

[yin26]

-=*MOVING THREAD UP*=-

[LordStone1]

The SUMMARY is up!

[NotLikeTea]

And a fine summary it is, too! Great work!

[yin26]

-=*MOVING THREAD UP*=-

[Narck]

To I. Number of Civilizations Included:

I think that there should be at least the number of civilizations available as offered in CTP.

Furthermore, I think that of modern nations, certain regions (like the Middle East) have not been addressed enough in previous civ-games -> therefore, I would like to suggest to include some nations from that region as well as from South America & Asia.

[Bigcivfan]

I like the idea of Major/Minor Civs in CivIII. Perhaps they could be implimented in the same style as the game IMPERIALISM. Where you traded with them and had limited diplomatic relations. If relations were good enough they would ask to join your empire, but you could always take them by force!!! Another idea would be to do away with barbarians and have minor civs take their place....

[LordStone1]

FYI: I'll be gone for 8 days to Santa Barbara and Santa Monica. Just letting ya know.

[Eggman]

There is one issue with minor civs though. In Imperialism, the timeframe is 1500-1915. At this point, the "world" is already divided among all the powers. There is no unclaimed land anywhere. Not so in Civ where the large majority of the land is up for grabs.

I figure that at the start of the game, there should be a small number of minor civs randomly distributed on the map. Some will be out in the middle of nowhere, others will be near the major civs. As the game progresses, minor civs will spontaneously pop up in unclaimed areas. Those that start up near established civs will be more advanced than those out in the middle of nowhere (they learn from their neighbors). Hopefully, by some time (certainly by 1800), most of the land (with some unpopulated areas remaining to be discovered) will be populated by somebody and diplomacy replaces exploration as a major factor.

When a major civ dies (or becomes marginalized), one of those minor civs should become a major civ.

In a perfect world, there will be an option to play without minor civs. Perhaps also an option to play with more or less minor civs too.

[Bigcivfan]

Yes Eggman!!! That is exactly the idea I had in my mind. Minor civs would add a whole extra dimension to the game and I think they should be included.