Civilizations

[tniem]

quote: Originally posted by Biddles on 04-08-2000 11:17 PM tniem: There are a few ancient Athenian leaders who were staunch democrats(republicans?), just do a little research and you'll be surprised to find that they all weren't trying to make themselves king.

Biddles-
Quite correct. I looked back at my posts and realize what you are referring to. I said that we could get rid of ancient democracy/republic, but of course Athens and Rome both had those in that time period (at least for a little while). Any way, when I originally wrote that I was thinking that time period would be considered Classics as Greece and Rome are normally seperated from the Ancient civs in history and English classes. But that would make even more leaders and certainly would be impractical.

[Yuvo]

MKL:
Of course they would, that's the whole point.
When a civ has a leader, that leader is the one that you talk to in negotiations, etc.
So whether you make peace with that civ is based on what kind of leader that person is, either a pacifist or a warmonger.
Also, that leader decides what the civ does and how everything in the empire is managed.
If that leader is democratic, he/she might change the civ's goverment type to a democracy.
The leaders attributes will be similar to those of Civ2, except maybe a bit more detailed.
I think having changing leaders is very important for Civ3, so that civs change with time, like they have with history. Alot of major historical events have occured because of a change of leadership, and a civilizations ways of thinking.

[MidKnight Lament]

Hey, settle down, mate. The last thing I remember seeing on this forum about what leaders would actually do was this.

quote: Originally posted by Sir Shiva on 04-04-2000 09:40 PM What I originally thought was that the changing leaders would be just superficial, to add a little more realism..

You mentioned this straight afterwards, but I still thought it was pretty general stuff:

quote: These leaders influence everything within that civilization, and represent the civs views at that time.

Fair enough if you want the leaders to do something. It's not all that bad an idea. But why don't you talk about how they'll actually affect the civs they're leading?

To say...

quote: Of course they would, that's the whole point.

...when it hasn't even been discussed or agreed uopn by anyone (that I can see, at least) came across as a little aggressive and a tad presumptuous.

- MKL

[This message has been edited by MidKnight Lament (edited April 10, 2000).]

[Yuvo]

Okay, sorry, I know I sounded a bit over the top.

But like I said, I would certainly like to have leaders changing with time to make it more historically accurate, and it might also help stop the later game getting boring with the same group of leaders all the time.

How they'd affect the civs they're leading, well basically they would become that civ's AI for the time they're in power.
They choose what should be built and all the decisions a human player might make.

A bit like civ2, except alot more influential, since in civ2, the leaders personality didn't make much of a difference.

[MidKnight Lament]

I should apologise for being a little forceful myself. I'm glad we've managed not to let a disagreement (or perhaps misunderstanding) degenerate into a full-on argument. After all, I'm not on this forum to make enemies. I'm here because I want to talk to people who have the same love of the game that I do, and perhaps in a small way help shape Civ 3 to make it a better game.

Regarding the topic, I want to make it clear that I'm not against leaders. I'm just a little wary of the sort of arguments which will be created with using historical figures. I'm also still wondering what leaders will actually add from a game-play perspective.

I'll just add one more thing that perhaps needs to be considered. Tell me if I'm wrong, but at the moment I understand that emerging leaders will mirror the desires of the people. And the leader will shape the civ using the leader's attributes. Will the next leader then be much the same as the last one? What measures are going to be in place to ensure that leaders don't all become the same? What's going to stop us from going around in circles? What triggers are in place for a new leader? Should a new leader have to have significantly different attributes to the old one?

There's a few questions to be asked from a game-play perspective before we worry about choosing which leaders for which governments, and for which civs.

I hope I've made myself a little bit better understood. And I'm sorry for getting a little defensive. Shake?

- MKL

[Dr Strangelove]

I have some ideas about having changing leaders for civs. I suggested this on another thread 2 months ago primarily as a means of spicing up the diplomacy and game play. The leaders of the AI players would periodically change either spontaneously or in response to events. If the civ is doing well, and has no threats or nearby rivals it might change to a "perfectionist" leader. If a civ has been falling behind, is threatened, or has nearby rivals it might acquire an "aggressive" leader, if it is surrounded by a lot of unsettled land it might adopt an "expansionist" leader. Have I got the categories of leaders mixed up? There should be a random factor to the change, because sometimes you just get the wrong leader for the times. The frequency of change should be limited, and for each civ there should be a bias toward selecting the type of leader usually associated with that civ.

[The Mad Viking]

I think no one has mentioned the Moors yet. That should IMHO be a CIV3 civ for sure.

Teutons AND Germans???

Many of the suggestions are very good, especially, I think, Minoans, Incas, Portuguese, Dutch, Koreans, Turks, Hebrews...

I think the Sioux add a neat flavour to the game, although it sometimes seems strange to have a civ that was neolithic 200 years ago... but why not?

What about the Goths? Huns? Kurgans? Bulgars? Why do civs have to start with a settler? Most civs started as nomads, who were hunters, and learned to kill efficiently - became barbarian hordes, conquered a more peaceful agrarian civ, then settled into the good life and began getting civilized. Why not have the choice of starting as a barbarian raider?

If the Poles get a civ, then I want one for Canada too! Seriously, we should have open source civs where a user can create their own.

I like the idea of little flags to identify the civs.

I really like the idea of the AI leader and personality changing to suit the situation they find themselves in. I played the Mongols recently when they started on a small island. They were worse than pathetic! Very disappointing.

[Yuvo]

MKL,

Shake.

On your questions:

quote: Originally posted by MidKnight Lament on 04-10-2000 08:57 AM Tell me if I'm wrong, but at the moment I understand that emerging leaders will mirror the desires of the people. And the leader will shape the civ using the leader's attributes.

Well, yes, but hopefully, if the leader doesn't do what the people want, like if they didn't want to be a warring sort of civ anymore and wanted to become a peaceful one, the people might start start a civil war or revolution, or (in a democracy) elect a new one.

Like I said earlier, it could, if done right, make the politics and diplomacy very interesting.

I agree with The Mad Viking, open source civs are a must. Although I'd also like it if Firaxis could include as many as they can, so that I won't have to go to the trouble of creating my own.
Btw, the Goths, Huns and Bulgars were included in civ2 as barbarian cities, if you ever looked in city.txt.

In civ3 I'd rather not see barbarians, just civs like the Huns etc. with very aggressive leaders.

[Grier]

Most of the ideas ive read so far are great. I would love to see a different leader for each civ for each different government type.

I would also like to see a whole host of minor civs with whom you could ally and maybee even embrace into your civ by peacefull means.

I would also like to see trade increase other civs attitude toward you.

Somthing that I think is very important would be the ability to create colonys and for those colonys to become independent at a later date.

[Earthling7]

Hey, you all forgot to enter the Icelandic! Why shou we be included? Let me tell you...

1. We found Greenland.
2. We found America (after the indians )
3. We had the first elected head of state in the world.
4. We have the highest number of internet users in the world.
5. 2nd highest car ownership...

Whatever... just include us... please???

[Earthling7]

First elected female head of state... sorry

[tniem]

Earthling7,

Do you mean the highest percentage of Internet users in your population? Iceland's population is 271,033 (1998 estimate).

Also, wouldn't Icelandic be included in Vikings?

[Earthling7]

Proportionate

There are no Icelandic cities in the Viking portfolio...

BTW, I am impressed by your sources

[Yuvo]

After The Mad Viking's message, I had an idea for civ3.....

Nomads:
When you start the game, instead of settlers, you get nomads.
There are three types of nomads:Normal, Horseback, and Desert.

Normal nomads move at 1 movement point a turn,have an attack strength of 2 and defence of 1. At the end of each turn, they must be within two squares of a source of water. Otherwise they die. If they spend 5 consecutive turns adjacent to a source of water they produce another normal nomad. If they are on desert squares for the 5 turns they produce a desert nomad. And if they spend that last turn on a square containing horses, they produce horseback nomads.

Horseback nomads (these represent civs like the Mongols before Ganghis Khan) move at 3 movement points a turn, have an attack strength of 3, and a defence of 1. Apart from that, they are the same as normal nomads.

Desert nomads (these represent civs like the Aborigines, and tribes of the Sahara) have 1 movement point per turn, have an attack strength of 2, and a defence strength of 2. Unlike other nomads, they can last as long as they like away from water sources.

All nomads can build cities, but cities cannot build them, they can only build settlers.

A civ can stay nomadic for as long as they like, but since nomads have low attack and defence strenghts, it isn't worth it past the discovery of gunpowder.

Civs can also have a mixture of cities and nomads if they like.

Do you like it?

[Yuvo]

Oh, and if your civ starts on a desert square, you get a desert nomad.

And another thing, I don't think all civs should start at 4000 B.C., maybe only 5 or 6 civs should start then and other ones come up randomly later on.

[Earthling7]

Sounds like a reasonable idea. I don't see why you'd want to be a nomadic nation, but if they implement it, it might add a new dimention to the gameplay...

------------------
Greetings,
Earthling7
ICQ: 929768

[Diodorus Sicilus]

Yuvo, to some extent you're 're-inventing the wheel' with the nomadic civilizations: I posted on that months ago in the "Suggestions for Firaxis" forum...gist of that was a nomadic civ (starting) produced Tribal Units which had the characteristics of 'mobile cities'. Biggest difference was that they could only reach a small size (perhaps pop of 3-4 max) before splitting off into new territory as 2+ new Tribes. Nomadic units would all be higher morale (more warlike lifestyle) than 'settled' civs that didn't spend big bucks on training. Nomads would pretty much have to settle down and found or conquer regular cities of their own by gunpowder, but they could be a scourge in the ancient period of the game and being mobile might have (built in) some advantages in setting up Trade Routes and trade income, also in trading tech with other civs (middlemen, so to speak).
As for the discussion concerning which and how many civs to include, as long as I can insert my choice of civs, I don't care: I play Civ II all the time with either a set of ancient civs (Celts, Hittites, Etruscans, Thracians, Illyrians, etc) or early modern European civs (Bavaria, Saxony, Burgundy, Poland, Scotland, Sweden, etc).
One thing I will add to the discussion, that I think is the origin of many problems: most modern civs are actually combinations of earlier civs. Furinstance, Britain/England is a combination of Germanic, French, Celtic, and Roman civs, while France is a combination of earlier Roman, Celtic, and German. Instead of having a myriad choices of anachronistic civs to start with, how about relatively few choices (as in CivII now) but the possibility of new civs forming during the game from combinations of the old with barbarians or 'minor civs'. Minor Civs, by the way, I think should be variations on the barbarians: just name them red fellers, let them build cities (or Tribal Units-see above) with the possibility of settling down and becoming "civilized" - possibly by conquering one of your cities and starting a Hybrid Civ with a shield in red and (your civ color). Ultimately, unit shields could have up to three stripes of colors. Including barbarians, even with only 8 starting civs that would give each game a potential 24 civilizations by the time it ended. If you want even more variation, have the civs change their titles based on a change in character (leadership? givernment?).
Thus, Tyrannic/Monarchic Vikings become Republic/Democratic Iceland, Warlord Celts get invaded by Rome and form a 2-striped Gaul which is invaded by Vikings and forms a 3-stripe Duchy of Normandy, which invades England and forms a new England with 3-stripes (dropping the oldest color)
The result if properly handled could be a much more dynamic game, more variety of civs and civ types within each game, and room for all the variations or modern nationalism represented by trying to include every current and ancestrial nation in the game package...

I wonder what danielc's thinking? I don't think he expected 47 replies to his post..

DanielC, have you seen what you have done?

------------------
-Shiva
Email: shiva@mailops.com
Web: http://www.crosswinds.net/india/~shiva
ICQ: 17719980

[Yuvo]

Diodorus Silicus,
Thanks for informing me on the "re-invention of the wheel". I get the feeling many older suggestions are being re-thought-up by newer members. I guess it just shows great minds think alike.

In contrast to the mobile-cities thing, I was thinking more along the lines of units, that produce new ones. They would be classified as the same as normal units, except maybe there would be some kind of indicator near the nomad's statistics as to how close the unit is to producing a new one.

Also, I thought the different types of nomad gave some disdinction to the different climates people live in.
Maybe we could put in a "civilized" nomad that could trade etc. like you are suggesting.

With your suggestions on starting civs, I think peopple might get annoyed because they can't start with modern civs like the Americans or Australians.
But I certainly am in favour of civs joining together and breaking apart, rather than having the same 7 all through you game.

[Diodorus Sicilus]

People tend to forget that the ancient 'nomadic' barbarians actually had a rather efficient pastoral economy, traded over huge distances, and posed major threats to their more settled neighbors. My intention with a Nomadic Civ that generated Tribal 'cities' and powerful units was to represent these better than the current CtP or CivII random pack of barbarians does.
The option to start with any anachronistic/modern civ can always be included in the game, along with an Option similar to the Don't Restart Eliminated that is in CivII now: Only Original Civilizations, indicating that there will be no amalgamating or'hybrid' civs during the game. However, another option (which I'd make the Default) would be to acquire Victory Points based on how long your civ goes without getting Hybridized. It certainly says something about your play to manage something like China and remain a separate recognizable racial and cultural type for 6000+ years, or even Greece or Korea which, although conquered at times, have maintained a separate identifiable culture throughout the same period.
Slightly off the topic, but I get tired of games in which the last10-30% of the game consists of increasing domination of the entire world by one nation, even when I'm playng that nation! realistically, I think it's how you play the 6000 historical years rather than how many huge cities you can develop in the last 50 turns that should count.
More variety in Victory possibilities also makes for a more varied and interesting game for all concerned: I'd love to see a multi-player game in which at the end one player is hailed as "Yuvo the Conqueror" with the greatest (traditional victory) military and economic strength in cities, units, etc, while another player is labeled "Cradle of Civilization" for having the earliest great civ and yet another gets the nod as "Nation of Shopkeepers" for having more and bigger trade routes than anyone else, etc., etc.

[WarVoid]

The Carthaginians should be replaced by the Phoenicians. After all the Phoenicians invented writing, glass and were known for Tyrian dye. The Phoenicians also founded cities all over europe; including Cornwall(England), Carthage (Tunisia), Cadiz & Granada (Spain), Sidra (Libya), Marseille (France), Monaco, Palermo (Italy), Cyprus and many other cities. This civilization should definately be included.

[Yuvo]

Diodorus:
I too would like to see various winners, I especially like the "Cradle of Civilization" thing.
Instead of the score at particular times, I think a civ's historical importance should be added into the score aswell. Any ideas on how historical scores could be calculated?

WarVoid:
I agree, the Phoenecians should be in. But I'd like to see the Carthaginians aswell, they were still historically important.

[WarVoid]

In answer to Yuvo's question. Civ3 could use and epoch type score. Say for instance if you play as a very old civilization such as the Hittites you get a large bonus since they were founded so long ago. If you play as a newer civ like the Americans which is only 224 years old the bonus will be less.

Another idea would be endurance. Like the Romans lasted a very long time so the bonus score would be big. Where as the Hittite empire was old but didn't last long and fell to Greece, so their bonus would be small.

The question I have is how would this affect the customized civs.

[Sirotnikov]

quote: Originally posted by WarVoid on 04-15-2000 08:23 PM The Carthaginians should be replaced by the Phoenicians. After all the Phoenicians invented writing, glass and were known for Tyrian dye. The Phoenicians also founded cities all over europe; including Cornwall(England), Carthage (Tunisia), Cadiz & Granada (Spain), Sidra (Libya), Marseille (France), Monaco, Palermo (Italy), Cyprus and many other cities. This civilization should definately be included.

Actually, If I remember my history lessons correctly (and I should 'cause I love history) the Phoenicians are basically ancient Carthagians. And the Pheelistins (i have no idea how to spell that) are also descendants of Phoenicians.

[WarVoid]

I almost forgot. Siberians. Theres almost no civs that start in this area of the map. After the breakup of Batu Khan's Golden Horde the khanates (states) of Sibir (Siberia), Astrakhan, Crimea and Kazan came into existence. Sibir lasted until 1583 when Russian cossacks conquered the capitol city also named Sibir.

For you history buffs. Try finding that city on any map. I've only been able to find it on one.

The city is located just north-east of Tobolsk on the Irtysh river east of the Urals. An easy way to find it is locate Omsk first then look a little further north.

The phoenicians should definitely be in..
But they don't have to replace anyone.. As was said before, Firaxis should include as many civs as possible and make others available for download later on..

------------------
-Shiva
Email: shiva@mailops.com
Web: http://www.crosswinds.net/india/~shiva
ICQ: 17719980

Maybe each civ could have its own directory,
eg:- c:\Civ3\Civs\Russians

This way, different civs can have different techs and units.
For example, Indians could have the elephant while English have the crusaders. The units could be equivalent..
It is strange to see the Arabs use Crusaders against French elephants after all..
In this way, cities, units, tech names, improvement names and pictures etc. could be civ-specific..

Of course, they must be customisable too...

------------------
-Shiva
Email: shiva@mailops.com
Web: http://www.crosswinds.net/india/~shiva
ICQ: 17719980

[Yuvo]

WarVoid:
But the in a civ game, Americans wouldn't always start at the same time, in fact they could start at any time, couldn't they?
You might have misunderstood my question, I was talking about the civ's historical imortance in the game you're playing. Sorry for not making myself clearer.

But I think that you could get points for the amount of years your civ lasts. If the "Rise and fall of empires" is included, and if not all civs start at the same time, this could be very important to your final score.
[This message has been edited by Yuvo (edited April 17, 2000).]

[WarVoid]

Yuvo:
So your saying base part of the score on the civs historical importance. I get you now.
However, history is re-written by the players in the game AI or human.
So the historical score could be based on what part that particular civ played in a single games history.
Such as if the Americans build so many wonders. Or contact other civs first. Or make certain discoveries first. Rating each player on their rankings in discovery, diplomacy, improvements, etc.. 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th and 7th. Barbarians don't get rated.
Is this what you meant?

[tniem]

WarVoice-

Yes that is what he meant. But if you stay on the forums long enough you will quickly learn that most people feel that we should go beyond 7 civs plus barbarians. Instead many feel larger games plus minor civs and rise and fall of empires. Take a look around if you don't understand and welcome to the forums.