Thread Tools
Old June 21, 1999, 00:59   #31
BigBarbarian
Settler
 
Local Time: 08:20
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 6
Play as the Barbarians! This feature HAS to be implmented!! To facillitate this you start out with one base city and a bunch of attack units. All the huts that make units for you are marked. To incite uprisings you use a leader(Diplomat/spy) and pay a certain amount of gold. This will create 6 or so of your best attackers (according to your tech level). Limitations on research make it slow, so the primary way of advances are demanding them from other civs(stealing or otherwise) or taking them as booty when a city is conquered. Barbarians shouldn't be able to build new cities, but are allowed to irrigate and etc. The advantages of barbarians would be more gold, more leverage in diplomatic negotiations if lots of units are outside a city, fast unit production and better spies/diplomats.
BigBarbarian is offline  
Old June 21, 1999, 13:02   #32
Eggman
Prince
 
Local Time: 08:20
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Mar 1999
Posts: 831
Another note on minor civs. They have to be strong enough that they cannot be conquered easily (at least at the beginning). You shouldn't get free cities because you intentionally leave territory open. This doesn't mean that all minor civs should be modern - I have no problem of having isolated minor civs easily conquered when they are discovered because they are technologically backwards. This is realistic. Minor civs should be relatively well armed for defense and, if they are conquered, have a much greater chance of revolt.

Minor civs should also have that ability to go into some sort of defensive pact with major powers. This could be in the form of a true alliance (they go to war with you) or as a protectorate (if anyone attacks them, you automatically go to war against the aggressor but not vice-versa). This allows them to remain independent as any attack will result in a war. The result is the ability to woo minor powers diplomatically without having to worry about major powers squashing them and ruining all your work.

As an additional bonus, trade with independent minor nations should be greater than internal trade. Gives another reason not to squash them immediately.

And I really like the barbarian idea. Adds a bit of silliness and a whole new angle of gameplay. Instead of building up, see how much you can break.
Eggman is offline  
Old June 21, 1999, 15:55   #33
Andy B
Chieftain
 
Local Time: 08:20
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Gothenburg,Sweden
Posts: 33
Barbarians are not a Civilization. But yes that would be fun to play them.

And why do we have to have major\minor civs. I think that every civ should start on equal conditions.
Andy B is offline  
Old June 21, 1999, 17:17   #34
Cartagia the Great
Chieftain
 
Local Time: 08:20
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: Wisconsin(the greatest dere hey!)
Posts: 70


Well my cousin went out and bought the Star Trek:BOF game, and I must say that it is an excelent game. I'm enjoying playing it much more than CTP, and that is rather sad, isn't it? After playing it, I have to say that minor civilizations are a MUST HAVE.

Anyway, here are my ideas for how minor civilizations would be used in this game. Most of this has been said before, I'm sure, but I don't care

Minor/major change- Every Civilization would have a chance to be either minor or major civilization. this chance would be set in the rules.txt or it's equivlent. For instance the Romans would ahve a 80 percent chance of being a major civ, but the Belgians would have, perhapse, a 30 percent chance of being a major civ.

This would allow us to get all of the civilizations we want into this game, because there would be a need for many civs.

joining-as in BOF Minor civilizations could join your nation either through conquest or through joining. If you conquer them you msut KEEP them under your controll, and they might stage rebellions to get out of your control. When conquered they'd act like any other conquered civilization, most likly.

If they choice to becoem one with you, they become like any other city. However, any settlers built from those cities would carry some of their ethnitiicty with them, so that if they decide to break free they'd try to take those cities with them. If they join you, you msut make sure to treat thme very nice, you cna't expell their population or the like.

It would be possible to liberate a minor civ, or any other civ for that matter, if you take that city from the enemy.


Minor powers would start with one or two cities, but couldn't build any more.. They could, however, irrigate and the like.

They would pop up in unclaimedl and all throughout the game, until most territory is taken by someone. This would represent how we have many differany nations on Earth, liek the Greeks, Irish, French, Germans and the like, we don't just have 7.


So, basicly, jsut liek in BOF, onyl with a few rules to make it fit better into civilization.
Cartagia the Great is offline  
Old June 21, 1999, 18:16   #35
Imran Siddiqui
staff
Apolytoners Hall of FameAge of Nations TeamPolyCast Team
 
Imran Siddiqui's Avatar
 
Local Time: 04:20
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: on the corner of Peachtree and Peachtree
Posts: 30,698
A question: If I have 32 Civs in my game, where could there possibly be room for Minor Civs?!
Imran Siddiqui is offline  
Old June 22, 1999, 09:49   #36
SnowFire
InterSite Democracy Game: Apolyton TeamApolytoners Hall of Fame
Emperor
 
SnowFire's Avatar
 
Local Time: 03:20
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: New York City, NY
Posts: 3,736
Imran: Because only 6-8 of them are major, and the rest are minor.

Cartagia: I actually mentioned the "probablity of becoming major/minor" in another thread, except I added a different twist- not only would it affect how big a chance that it would be a major civ, it would also affect the chance of it simply being included. For instance, the British and the Chinese would be included in most games, while the Sioux might only show up as a minor tribe rather rarely, except on large maps with a lot of minor civs. It involved a certain number of points for being a major civ, and for being a minor civ. The general idae is you stick all the major civ stones in a bag, and pick out 6-8: Since Britain has 6 stones in the bag and Belgium 1, the drawing is rigged. And then, with all the civs not selected to be majors initially, they get their minor civ stones thrown in the bag. So it would be like:
Britain: 6,6 (high chance of being included)
Belgium: 1,5 (small chance of being major, okay chance of being minor)

My view on minor civ advancement: Yes, they get most of their techs from Tech bleed. The result is (and perhaps this can be programmed in) that an isolated minor civ or group of minor civs (like in America) will still have bows and arrows when the Europeans come across. On the other hand, Belgium, a protectorate of England and France, survives in the middle of a major nation minefield because it has strong friends and all the technology of its many friends. Which reminds me, in the modern era, the era of de-imperializing, Germany would be quite annoyed if it became part of England after WWI. Instead, you have to decide a policy with what to do with the defeated nation- spend lots of money occupying it? Give it back to the nation, with a Versailles-like clause? Or just give it back?

Which reminds me, it's silly that there isn't more map-sharing between trade partners- I remember trading with cities in SMAC I couldn't see. Apperantly my traders forgot the locations of the bases they were going and didn't tell the government.
SnowFire is offline  
Old June 22, 1999, 15:17   #37
Ecce Homo
Prince
 
Local Time: 09:20
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Posts: 312
I am not sure about the major/minor civ concept. This is not just to be politically correct, but I would rather see that the civs' AI should differ. The English AI would be likely to result in a strong, expanding, advancing civ, while the Sioux AI would not have the right parameters for being successful. Then it would be a greater challenge for the player to play against the "better" AI:s.

<font size=1 color=444444>[This message has been edited by Ecce Homo (edited June 22, 1999).]</font>
Ecce Homo is offline  
Old June 22, 1999, 15:26   #38
Imran Siddiqui
staff
Apolytoners Hall of FameAge of Nations TeamPolyCast Team
 
Imran Siddiqui's Avatar
 
Local Time: 04:20
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: on the corner of Peachtree and Peachtree
Posts: 30,698
Ok, I don't like the Major/Minor civ idea at all!
Imran Siddiqui is offline  
Old June 22, 1999, 18:08   #39
Ekmek
Call to Power II Democracy GameCTP2 Source Code Project
Emperor
 
Ekmek's Avatar
 
Local Time: 01:20
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: May 1999
Posts: 3,156
The minor and major civ thing is great, if it doesn't impede on waiting for my turn. It would be nice though to see several tribes at the beginning and only some develop into civilizations and some become/remain nomadic tribes, barbarians up until modern times had a big impact on civilization (rome and china especially) and there should be more emphasis on that instead of random attacks.

Also it maybe way to difficult but it would be nice to have not only geographic position affect development but certain resources and climate dictates expansion too. (i.e. horses and elephant weren't prerdominant everywhere and the romans could settle in the northeast because they didn't know how to farm in the wooded areas of germany and russia because all they new were olive trees and fishing etc.) It would add to the history and kep some "shape" to empire development.
Ekmek is offline  
Old June 22, 1999, 18:47   #40
EnochF
Prince
 
EnochF's Avatar
 
Local Time: 00:20
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 610
I'm still on the fence about the Minor Civ idea. I'll tell you what, though. I'll probably buy this Birth of the Federation game, and after I've played for a while, I'll offer up an opinion on whether minor civs add or detract to things.

I would like to hear reasons from the naysayers. The two probable objections I see are, (1) it will decrease the amount of real competition in the game because minor civs cannot compete with major civs, and (2) I don't want my civilization to be called "minor." There are probably variations on #2, like I don't want the civilization of my ancestors called "minor," or I don't want my friend's civilization called "minor," or it's not politically correct to call this civilization "minor."
EnochF is offline  
Old June 22, 1999, 19:21   #41
Imran Siddiqui
staff
Apolytoners Hall of FameAge of Nations TeamPolyCast Team
 
Imran Siddiqui's Avatar
 
Local Time: 04:20
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: on the corner of Peachtree and Peachtree
Posts: 30,698
I wonder; why have minor nations? Why not 32 Major nations that can compete equally with each other. We don't need minor nations!
Imran Siddiqui is offline  
Old June 22, 1999, 19:57   #42
The Ellimist
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
My list:

Aborigines
American
Akkadian
Anatolian
(Anglo-)Saxon
Argentines
Assyrian
Australian
Austro-Hungarian
Aztec
Babylonian
Berbers
Belgian
Brazilians
Byzantine
Canadian
Canaanites
Carthaginian
Celts
Cherokee
Chinese
Cossacks
Danes
Dutch
Egyptian
English
French
Ethiopian
Finns
Gauls
German
Ghana
Greek
Hawaiian (Really. There was a Hawaiian empire at some point.)
Hellenic
Hebrew
Hittites
Huns
Incas
Indian
Irish
Israeli
Japanese
Korean
Khmer
Khitan
Luxembourg
Lithuanian
Macedonian
Mayans
Mesopotamian
Mexican
Minoan
Mongol
Moors
Mycenean
Native American
Nigerian
Norman
Norse
Norwegians
Nubian
Ottoman
Persian
Phoenican
Polynesian
Portuguese
Polish
Prussian
Pueblo
Roman
Russian
Scottish
Siamese
Sioux
Spanish
Sumerian
Swedes
Tibetans
Thai
Turk
(Visi)Goths
Vikings
Zulu
 
Old June 22, 1999, 20:04   #43
DaBods
Settler
 
Local Time: 08:20
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Emmaus,Pa U.S.A.
Posts: 16
There should definitely be minor tribes. This brings many new aspects to the game. Do you crush them, make them a province, where you get trade and taxes but lose control of micromanagement. if you took over a minor tribe they will always be more likely to revolt, but if you make them a province they will be happier. maybe there should be something like if a city revolts so many times in a certain amount of turns it could become a minor tribe. maybe you could also influence minor tribes to do your dirty work to major civilizations. or you could agree to protect them in exchange for money of food. the possibilites are endless.
DaBods is offline  
Old June 22, 1999, 20:17   #44
DaBods
Settler
 
Local Time: 08:20
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Emmaus,Pa U.S.A.
Posts: 16
i'm not to thrilled about the dynasy issue. i would like to see different leaders, but you still make all the decisions. maybe if you get one type of ruler you get a bonus in something, be it trade, production, science, morale, etc,. and something is taken away. maybe you could have spies try to assassinate a ruler, and the assassination of a well-liked ruler would trigger a period of anarchy. a despotic ruler would have people declare war on him, and be more likely to be assassinated. you could also try to bribe the nation in anarchy if you were at war to put in a peaceful leader, and have morale points taken away.
DaBods is offline  
Old June 23, 1999, 09:12   #45
Eggman
Prince
 
Local Time: 08:20
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Mar 1999
Posts: 831
A comment on the minor civ issue.

The concept of minor civs reflects:
(1) some civilizations never became more than bystanders (or pawns, depending on the situation) in history
(2) some, if not most, land not settled by one of the major powers eventually will have some sort of developed civilization on it that our heroes will eventually have to interact with. At the moment, this land is treated as if it is either uninhabited or populated with people still firmly in the Stone Age.

However, there are complications with implementing this concept within the Civilization mold. Should minor civs be obvious or should it take investigation to figure out who is a major power and who isn't? Should major and minor powers be treated differently or the same in diplomaticly (I would say the same - however, I doubt major powers would agree to become protectorates unless they really are in big trouble)? Can all but defeated major civs be relegated to minor status and a minor power rise (fairly quickly - cheating would not bother me here) to take its place? Really, the only thing that would seem obvious is that minor civs shouldn't try to win the game and major civs should.

Personally, if they only go with eight civs again, they should have minor powers. Even with 32 civs, on large maps, minor civs are still a real possibility. Of course, you should have the option to turn them off as well.
Eggman is offline  
Old June 23, 1999, 09:28   #46
NotLikeTea
Warlord
 
Local Time: 08:20
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: HRM, NS, Canada
Posts: 262
The comment on pawns is very important.

Look at our century. Korea was an important war, but not a major civ (at the time, at least..). Vietnam was an important war, but not a major civ. Look at today.. is Yugoslavia a major civ?

Most of the important political/millitary actions of the last 100 years have involved minor civs to a great degree. Seldom does one major power go to war with another major power directly. In the second world war, Germany attacked the smaller countries before dealing with the really big powerful ones.

Minor powers could lead to cold wars, which is something I desperately want to see in the game. I have no diea how to implement them, though....
NotLikeTea is offline  
Old June 23, 1999, 09:28   #47
Stefu
Apolytoners Hall of Fame
Emperor
 
Stefu's Avatar
 
Local Time: 10:20
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: CLOWNS WIT DA DOWNS 4 LIFE YO!
Posts: 5,301
Hawaiians... That sounds bad. In Earth map, this civ would be cramped on single island for quite long time. Also try to find about 30 Luxembourger city names.

I think civs shouldn't have any bonuses-minuses, however they should have agenda like factions had in SMAC. This would be lots of fun, especially wen we get to diplomacy. However, careful must we be when we decide which civ gets which agenda.

Also, I like idea of minor civs. I think minor civs should be born:

1. by revolution, and
2. if barbarians hold one city for, say, 3 turns.

However, it'd get tougher if we have to decide city names for civs. Minor civs shouldn't have ability to build new cities. For naming: If civ is born by revolution, it would have preset name (ie Civ that revolute from Americans would be Confederates) and maybe there would be multiple name choices if there are many revolutions. If it is born by Barbarian way, it'd get name of the Barbarian group that captured it (remember those Avars?)
Stefu is offline  
Old June 23, 1999, 11:02   #48
Ekmek
Call to Power II Democracy GameCTP2 Source Code Project
Emperor
 
Ekmek's Avatar
 
Local Time: 01:20
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: May 1999
Posts: 3,156
.

<font size=1 color=444444>[This message has been edited by E (edited June 23, 1999).]</font>
Ekmek is offline  
Old June 23, 1999, 11:04   #49
Ekmek
Call to Power II Democracy GameCTP2 Source Code Project
Emperor
 
Ekmek's Avatar
 
Local Time: 01:20
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: May 1999
Posts: 3,156
I'm still for the minor civ idea. I kinda like the minor civs not having settlers, but if they do that they need to create either an engineer unit that can't make cities or something like it (I didn't like the CTP way of building because I tend use my settlers as "combat engineers" who add maneuver on the front line of battle and you can't do it in CTP).

I added in another thread (Game Atmosphere) about Cold War competition being more involved then just a peaceful arms or space race (the olympics was an idea). But if you have minor civs you can have client state wars like we had in the past 50 years (instead of al the aliances being entangling and nuclear war always breaking out).

To add to my horse idea (and i should add it to minor techs) maybe they should make different types of goody huts that represent different resources like elephants and horses this would add to the character of civilizations (this could lead to culture special techs and maybe determine who is minor and who is major).
Ekmek is offline  
Old June 23, 1999, 16:56   #50
Andy B
Chieftain
 
Local Time: 08:20
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Gothenburg,Sweden
Posts: 33
God didnīt tell witch civ that shoud be major/minor, When it all began. So why should we?
Andy B is offline  
Old June 23, 1999, 19:49   #51
Eggman
Prince
 
Local Time: 08:20
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Mar 1999
Posts: 831
Just brainstorming...

As an alternate to the minor power concept, if wimpy powers would act like wimpy powers (grovel and look for alliances) this wouldn't be such a big idea. But they don't. The Zulus down to one city demand tribute and threaten you with their two units and declare suicidal wars against enemies 20 times their size. A change in AI might change things for the better.

Of course, this doesn't deal with the fact that a standard Civ2 game has a grand total of seven civilizations. On anything but a small map, that leaves huge tracts of land unclaimed. I would prefer to have something to fill those spaces.

Also remember that even though CTP had 32 civs, Firaxis may stick with the ole reliable 7 or 8. Having more civs may make the AI more difficult to program. This allows them to have more civs without complicating the AI too much.

Plus, in every edition of Civ, diplomacy is unimportant. With minor powers, diplomacy is very important. To be quite honest, I want some peaceful options to expanding my empire beyond building a size one city and waiting 50 turns for it to be useful.

Even if they don't take the minor power idea, I think the concept of spontaneously appearing civs in neutral area is a very good idea on its own merits. Spices up play a bit.
Eggman is offline  
Old June 23, 1999, 22:58   #52
DARTH KRAFTER
Chieftain
 
Local Time: 08:20
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: NEW EGYPT, NJ USA
Posts: 43
I agree with eggman - if you have more and more civs, some will be "minor" without being designated so from the start. Also, a minor civ will never be a threat, leaving no possibility for respect from the player who will demand tribute, ect. If all civs are on a level playing field, then any civ has any possibility, making the game more and more random.

minor note: civIII should include the Ottomans!!
DARTH KRAFTER is offline  
Old June 24, 1999, 00:01   #53
Flavor Dave
Prince
 
Local Time: 08:20
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Dec 1969
Posts: 452
On minor civs--every X number of turns (25? 50?) the computer randomly picks a tile at least X squares from any city and starts a minor empire. This minor civ basically will be like the advanced tribe we already know. Early, it just has one unit, adds city improvements, and roads (for increased trade). You can trade with it. Minor tribes should have some kind of automatic GL type facility--perhaps minor tribes automatically get every tech discovered by every civ, or every civ but one (in a game with 6 civs, once 5 have discovered something, it is known to all minor tribes). You have to do something with this, or else these minor tribes will have legions defending their cities in 1900. And that would be pointless.

Further, every time the computer pops out a new minor civ, each existing minor civ founds a new city (space permitting). Do this until there is no more room for minor civs. Minor civs will place a VERY high priority on getting alliances.

With some thought from Firaxis, the "major minor" civs (the oldest ones, which will have 5 cities in the modern era) can be an important part of any cold wars. That would answer alot of problems I've seen raised regarding realistic diplomacy in the modern era.

On dynasties--it sounds like great fun; there could be some really cool, fun movies of burials and coronations. Plus, with the "newspaper" idea from another thread, you could have another way to keep track of what you civ accomplished (in the reign of Abraham Lincoln III, the Americans converted from a monarchy to a republic, conquered 2 cities, founded 3 others, etc. etc.). I suggest that there be a small "window of death;" the rulers last from 50-70 turns, at random. Or better, it starts at 35-55 turns for Abraham I, is 40-60 for Abraham II, etc. Each AI ruler will be more or less warlike, expansionist (the scale for this should be bigger than from -1 to +1), and each successor will be more or less like his dad/mom, but slightly different. Let's say the scale will be -10 to +10. If Genghis I is +8 warlike, his successor will be (randomly) between +6 and +10.

Or maybe not completely random. A civ with Pyramids will have a bias towards expansionism, a civ with Sun Tzu will have a bias towards fighting.

Thoughts?
Flavor Dave is offline  
Old June 24, 1999, 14:39   #54
SnowFire
InterSite Democracy Game: Apolyton TeamApolytoners Hall of Fame
Emperor
 
SnowFire's Avatar
 
Local Time: 03:20
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: New York City, NY
Posts: 3,736
Diodorus: You're absolutely right... IF your system is used. I highly doubt that, however. Instead, if the normal abstraction is used, a minor civ with only 2-3 cities creates a much more realistic feel as the game goes on. "Letting the dice fall as they may" creates one gigantic Mediterranean region circa 3000 B.C. - A.D. 1 over the entire map.

Imran: The problem with that is that under CivX, if you leave the Aztecs in Mexico until 1500 and then come for them with your sophisticated arquebuses and crossbows, you're in for a shock- the Aztecs will have colonized the entire continent and have ironclads by then since they've had no natural enemies. Historically, some civs have just sat there in the New Stone Age and never broke through to high technology. Even the Incas, who were quite advanced compared to most Native Americans, never discovered bronze working. In a normal game of Civ, this simply wouldn't happen.

And plus, remember there are always chances of reversals- the Arabs were a minor civ up till around AD 700, after which they became a major civ (and still are today). The Japanese were a minor civ up until Perry, after which they became minor (and, if we were running a game of Civ, the Dutch would then get kicked out of the major power position).

Another good idea to incorporate what DS says- Maybe only start with 4-6 major civs, and as the game progresses, grow the number to 8-10 as lucky minor civs like Japan are annointed major powers. Maybe, if the Incas were lucky enough to beat Pizarro, they'd be promoted to major power on the spot since they've seen such advanced technology, and start researching and founding new cities normally.

Speaking of the Incas, the minor civs should definitely NOT be limited to one city, unless of course they're so crowded out they never got the chance/lose all their cities but one. I'd say a normal expansion in the early game, if a bit slower than most, to 2-3 cities that are in comfortable distance. Perhaps 4. Later in the game, minor civs with unusual amounts of unsettled territory around them can expand even more to 7-8 cities, make war on their fellow minor civs (like Japan invading Korea, the Aztecs attacking the other Mexican tribes) and perhaps become Major Civs if succesful enough.

And I reiterate- technology bleed should be on the basis of nearby civilizations. If you use "All but one of the major civ's techs," you're going to wind up with horribly backward MN's, quite unlike the Belgium of today, and on the flip side, the MN's in a Major Nation starved area will be TOO advanced, since they never really ran into contact with that. Enforce the rules with them; they only get technologies they research, even though they have a scant 2-3 cities to do it with. As for how the bleed should be handled, I say each nation at war counts as 1/3, each neutral nation 2/3, each nation at peace 1, and each nation in alliance 2. What do those numbers mean? If Tech A is in the hands of a civ the MN is at war with and a civ the MN is at peace with, the MN point tally for that tech is 1. That means that every turn, the MN has a 1/N chance of discovering the tech through bleed. If the MN met another nation and formed an alliance, it would have a 3/N chance of discovering the tech every turn. N would be equal to the rate of tech bleed to Minor Nations, hackable in the rules.txt file. 8 would be a standard number for fairly heavy tech bleed; 6 would mean it's really hard to keep secrets from them when they get the critical add to "1" on a tech; and 16 would delay them getting a tech for a good bit, even if they have friends with the tech. It should be noted that if the point score for a tech is below 1 for a minor nation, they have no chance; I.E. If you're the only one in contact with a MN and you're at war with them, there will be no leakage. The virtues of this system is that the more contact a MN gets, the more techs that bleed to it and the faster it gets them; but if you, a major power can keep the MN isolated, they will be at your mercy. Don't count on it though; remember, other MN's count in this calculation. If you and other civs let a certain tech slip to them, and they're at peace with other MN's, a tech can spread through the MN's despite the best efforts of the major powers.

"But," you say, "then I'll simply conquer every MN that comes before my path, before they have a chance to bleed some of my technology. And so will the AI. Result: No MN's."

Well, you fix that through what I call "far contact." You don't have a radar as to where these civs are. When you get close enough, these trading minor civs get a level of contact with you that's not quite neutrality, but more info than the closed tounges of war. So I give far contact with a civ 1/2 a point. So if you and another civ both have a certain tech and are both reasonably close to another MN, they start rolling the dice to get a chance at bleeding it to them.

Besides, if you aquire a repuation as a ruthless conqueror, your conquered citizens will revolt and throw you out at the first sign of weakness. Keeping loyal, homeland-supported Imperial Garrisons in every town is going to tax your resources. And should you recruit any native units to help you, a la Romans recruiting Germans... god help you if they join the angry populace.

Plus, I forget where the topic for nationalism was, but I'm going to put it here. Earlier in the game, this should play far less a role- all the barbarians tribes of Northern Italy considered themselves Roman after a fashion, and the unification of Italy in the 1800's provoked no dissent. Same with Germany, a minor tribe who starts an independence movement and eventually unifies to a major power. But Balkanized areas in more modern times stay that way. The Irish did not become British after being conquered; they still considered themselves Irish. Thus Irish nationalism while occupied against Britain is greater than Northern-Italian nationalism against Italy (there is none, basically.)

Whew, that was a ramble.
SnowFire is offline  
Old June 24, 1999, 17:07   #55
Ecce Homo
Prince
 
Local Time: 09:20
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Posts: 312
* You in the major/minor civ debate: Can you please be more brief?

* I oppose the idea of civs being labelled "major" and "minor". I do not see any advantage before simply having more civs.

* There has never been a tribe called Vikings. A viking was a sailor from Denmark, Norway or Sweden in the 9th to 11th century.

* Firaxis should include any contemporary or historic nation/tribe for which twenty city names, one male and one female leader are known.

Anyone who disagrees?

<font size=1 color=444444>[This message has been edited by Ecce Homo (edited June 24, 1999).]</font>
Ecce Homo is offline  
Old June 24, 1999, 18:57   #56
Transcend
Prince
 
Transcend's Avatar
 
Local Time: 01:20
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Boulder, Colorado, USA
Posts: 406
No initial major/minor civs. Remember, this is a game, not a historic simulation!! Roman civilzations certainly did not start in 4000BC, and America never was destroyed by Sioux. But do above examples bother anyone playing Civ2? I guess most of you don't. What makes this game fun is that you can totally rewrite history and see familiar civs taking a different development.
The only realistic way to implement major/minor civ concept is to determine them dynamically. That means updating the status of each civ after certain turns. Suppose there are 15 civs in the game, major/minor civs will be determined every 50 turns according to their pop, econ, science, military, and wonders. The top 5(or 6) can be counted as major and the rest as minor. Then after another 50 turns a new evaluation will be done. It's almost certain that some major and minor civs will swap their status. This solution will maintain both realism and gameplay. I hope you guys agree.
Transcend is offline  
Old June 24, 1999, 21:25   #57
Bigcivfan
Settler
 
Local Time: 08:20
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Quesnel, B.C., Canada
Posts: 16
After reading postings I want to offer revisions to the minor/major civ debate. I think that all civs should start out equal, as minor civs. A civ should have to meet certain prerequisites to reach major civ status. (such as military power or civ size?) Minor civs will be inclined to flock towards the major civ of their choice. Being a major civ should entail some advantages (and possibly disadvantages.) Maybe the first five major civs could have a permentant veto in the U.N. Major powers would definatly have more diplomatic powers. A nation should not be permanently branded a major or minor power for the duration of the game, but can gain and fall from status; such as the fall of Rome and the rise of the United States. Imagine a game of CivIII where the ruling major civs go to war and are so weakened that two minor civs, Luxembourg and Brunei, rise up in the power vacuum and take control of the world...what possibilites would exist with a system like this....
Bigcivfan is offline  
Old June 24, 1999, 21:50   #58
Flavor Dave
Prince
 
Local Time: 08:20
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Dec 1969
Posts: 452
" I oppose the idea of civs being labelled "major" and "minor". I do not see any advantage before simply having more civs."

Let me give it a shot. I'll start by saying you may very well be right.

Still, it is my opinion that if you start a game on a normal map with 14 civs, a good number of them, maybe 5, will have basically no chance. They'll be hemmed in, and gone in no time, by 2500 BC. OK, now you're down to 9. And I'll bet that you lose a few more by 1 AD. So, now you've just got a normal civ game.

OTOH, if you periodically create minor civs, in *safe* locations, and give them a different diplomatic program and status, then you won't have a normal Civ game. If you start with 7, but follow my idea of creating minor civs every 50 turns (for example), and have each grow by one city every 50 turns, then you have a better chance of having them survive to modern times, and affecting the game.

Flavor Dave is offline  
Old June 24, 1999, 21:57   #59
Ecce Homo
Prince
 
Local Time: 09:20
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Posts: 312
I still do not understand what is the purpose of having major/minor civs. Why can't we just have "civs"?
Ecce Homo is offline  
Old June 25, 1999, 00:07   #60
Diodorus Sicilus
Warlord
 
Local Time: 08:20
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Steilacoom, WA, USA
Posts: 189
I'm most definitely against labeling any civ 'minor' or 'major' from the beginning of the game. Not only is it unrealistic, it stifles play, can potentially PO players, and removes some of the chance to radically change history that, I think, is one of the selling points of the Civ games.
One alternative is to have a Player Option you can set in defining your Game Parameters: Historical or Random Start. In an Historical Start, each civ will have as many of the characteristics of the 'real' civ as possible, while in a Random Start the only special characteristics of a civ will be set by its randomized starting location: civs on a small island will be nudged toward SeaFaring or Ship Building, and so forth. This is dicey, because many civs on all of the proposed lists of civs to include simply didn't exist in any recognizable form in 4000BC, but it would provide an option for a starting definition for each Civ.
Another point in the Major/Minor debate: in 4000BC, when the game starts (supposedly; has there been any Thread discussion on alternative starting dates?) there would only be about 3 civs on the map with the ability to form cities: Egypt, Sumeria, the Indus (pre-Indian). Everybody else is still pre-agriculture, pre-city-building. Giving a CtP-style starting tech list that varies either historically or randomly could start civs as minor or major effectively, but leave the further development up to the progress of the game: a nomadic civ at the start could still grow by forming Tribes which wouldn't have the population of a city but could generate military units. It would either develop agriculture, settle down and start cities of its own, or conquer its nearest settled neighbor and take over their cities. Both patterns occured historically, and the 'conquest by outside barbarians' covers the start of most of the 'major' civs today: France, England, Germany, Russia - even China, are the results of successive waves of barbarian conquerors who eitherrestarted the civ or got absorbed by it.
Another comment on minor civs. In a way, most of the 'goodie huts' in CivII and CtP are Minor Civs: how else do you justify them providing you with a settler, tech advance, money, or military unit? In this, without the rigid definition in the new game, they are very similar to the Minor Races in BOF.
Personally, I think a combination of more adaptable Barbarians, who can trade, move, fight, do diplomacy, and starting definitions that vary among the starting civs, will give us the effect of Major and Minor Civs without explicitly labeling any of them as such.
Diodorus Sicilus is offline  
 

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:20.


Design by Vjacheslav Trushkin, color scheme by ColorizeIt!.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Apolyton Civilization Site | Copyright Đ The Apolyton Team