New poll: Number of civs

Vote! http://apolyton.net/civ3/

[SnowFire]

This is a really bad poll. It is simply far too vauge about how the civ set up will be. For instance, I'd like to see anywhere from 5 to 32 civs at a time in the game, BUT I'd like to have, say, 8 major civs and 24 minor civs. Saying "32 civs" implies something like CTP, which was horribly unrealistic in that regard in having all the civs be the equivalent of major civs (big play-balance problem because since the AI can't ally to "stop the leader," conquer 2 civs and you are now 3 times as powerful (roughly) as any other civ, making the rest of the game meaningless). Furthermore, I'd like for it to be customizable, as in I might want simply 5-8 major civs one game for more of a "Civ classic" feel, or maybe 8 majors and only 8 minors another game. This poll can't show that at all.

My suggested poll responses for this would be something more like
A. 3-7 with 21 total, a la CivII
B. 8 with 32 total, a la C:CTP
C. up to 32 players at once, as CTP was supposed to have
D. A major/minor civ system with up to 8 major civs and any number of minor civs, 0-24.
E. Your suggestion here

Or maybe just a simple "Major/minor civs: A good idea?" question, who knows. Ah well. Just my 2 cents.

[Atahualpa]

explain on major/minor civs! I think if a civ is small, it is automatically minor, isnt it? Currently, I dont like the major/minor civ idea, but if you could explain it to me...

16 civs is a must! 32 is too much I think, but at least 16, even if it is not supported!

Ata

[SnowFire]

Um, no, that's now how it works. Read some older posts in the suggestions forum. The really short version is, 32 cookie-cutter Greco-Roman civilizations is not only unhistorical, it works against play balance. The simple fact is, not every civ expanded like crazy and tried to take over as much of the world as possible. And those civs ended up getting ruthlessly imperialized from the 15th century onward. Even if a civ becomes weak, it still has the same AI as a great power, causing it to make ridiculous demands and reducing options like missionaryism, imperialism, creating puppet states, etc. I don't want to have to personally rule a huge empire; I want to have lots of annoyed ethnic groups if I do (like the Soviet Union did). Minor civs and ethnic nationalism can contribitue a lot to this. Plus, what about those vast empty spaces on the map? They can be populated by minor civs who spread technology around the world that way.

Minor civs would have a different AI that would call for some initial growth at first, and then very slow growth afterward. It would develop science mostly by trade and luck. It would have its own special AI. And there would be lots of things to do to it (let's say Belgium)- maybe sign a treaty guarenteeing its safety, like England did, saying that "A declaration of war on Belgium is a declaration of war on me." And then trade with it and get lots of good technology from it.

Of course, if a major civ is weakened enough (like Poland from 1600 onward), then it may become a minor civ and an especially strong minor civ may become a major civ (like the Germans or the Russians, who profitted at Poland and others expense).

Snowfire, the civ setup in all civ games is straight: there are no major and minor civs. So, I followed that setup in the choices...

Your proposal is not a variation of the topic but is actually a totally different one.

[Maniac]

I agree with Snowfire. I voted wrong (32) because I assumed minor civs were taken in account and I think others did the same. Without minor civs I would still vote for only 8.

[Stuff2]

Why don't smart up the AI instead.
Make them aware of how much power they really have compared to other nation's.
If they are strong they will behave differently than if they are weak.

Also. Make the computerplayers change leaders during the game with differen't personalities. Then your best ally can, with a switch of leader suddenly start to hate u.

[Maniac]

Stuff2, about changing personalities.
Don't drive it too far. I wouldn't like it if my ally suddenly hated me after two turns (2 x 25 = 50 = length of leadership).

[Stuff2]

I didn't mean that your ally always starts to hate u as soon as they change leader. It's just a possibility especially if the leader-change is a result of a revolution.
The most common is that if there is no revolution the next leader will be pretty much the same as the old one.

And I also think that there should be no turn's that go longer than 10 years.

[Maniac]

Ok, but then there should also be a possibility that the attitude of a civ towards you dramatically increases.
Eg the present relations between France and England would be impossible in Civ2 since they had war for +- 1000 years in game terms.

And yes, I think also that the # years in a turn should decrease. I always found it pity that the most interesting ages passed so quickly.

[Stuff2]

yep...U've got my point! ;-)

[Atahualpa]

Thanks Snowfire, but I still dont like that idea. What if the player himself becomes a minor civ? And why the heck should a minor civ have better technology than a major civ?

With 8 civs there is not so much interaction and especially if the game has a very good diplomacy I vote for 16 civs at least.

Ata

[Maniac]

Atahualpa, where did Snowfire say that minor civs would get better tech?

With Civ and SMAC you usually wind up with 2-4 civs that go nowhere (only build a few cities). I think what happens is they loose a couple of Settlers/Colonies to barbarians/worms and then just don't build any more. So you wind up with minor civs anyway. In SMAC they can usually be dominated or bullied into becoming "allies" in a one-sided way.

I suspect with numerous civs you would wind up with numerous de facto minor civs.
[This message has been edited by don Don (edited September 24, 1999).]

[Yakopepper]

I think having major and minor civs is a bad idea. Basically because if you start with say like 20, Civs will be close to each other and some will dominate the immediate area and therefore cause 2 or 3 other civs to either be eliminated or
became stale. <--like a minor civ except shouldnt have bonuses or anything.
And I also think there should be revolutions and civil wars to cause possibly a relatively large civ to split or lose part of its empire to cause once again other civs to pop up with the same tech as its original host.

No civ should get any tech bonuses basically because history will show that dominate(large, major) civs have advanced tech before the smaller ones

Ehh?

Daniel

[Atahualpa]

m@ni@c: this is the line: And then trade with it and get lots of good technology from it.

How can a major civ obtain better technology from a minor civ. A major civ is major because it is far ahead in science and strength. But as strength depends on science a minor civ mustnt have better technology than a major civ, or else it wouldnt be minor!

Ata

[Matthew]

First of all, what major civ did not start out as a minor civ? At the time the small city of Rome liberated itself from Eutruscan rule around 500 BC I would say that it was a pretty minor entity compared to China, the Persian empire, or even some of the Greek confederations.

Want realism? Make it possible for a small, insignificant city state to become a major power in 200 years and the greatest economic power in history, up to that point, in another 200. Make it possible for a few tiny cities on a far off continent to revolt from their mother country and then in 150 years time dwarf that mother country in population and industrial might, all without conquering any major population centers. Make it possible for a minor civ confined to an island chain the size of California with few natural resources, still in the iron age when the major powers are for the most part quite industrialized, to in 50 years be able to compete with those industrialized civs militarily (Russo Japanese war, Japanese won), 50 years later conquer half the pacific, get throttled and bombed back into the stone age, and in another 40 years have the 2nd largest economy on earth and be #2 in industrial output, all without (succesfully, anyway) expanding beyond its original borders or skyrocketing in population.

Actually the story of a minor civ becoming a great power, sometimes even overshadowing older civilizations, is the rule, not the exception. Of course this degree of realism would be hard to impliment, so for practical purposes we should probably content ourselves with the myriad of China type eternal civs that we have gotten so far. (Yes, I know that some of these success stories can be achieved against the AI (artificial idiot), but not likely in MP.

[Maniac]

Atahualpa, I can't believe what you say!
Science has nothing to do with how large a civ is. If it would be related, now, China (the eternal civ as Matthew says) and Russia and earlier eg the Incas would be far ahead in technology on the rest of the world and all other countries would be undeveloped.

To the contrary, through all history, it didn't matter how large you were.
Just look at all those greek city states and compare them to Persia. Do they look inferior?
Same later in history. The Europeans got the lead in technology, although they are just a bunch of small countries.
In fact, when you get a lead in science and (military) strength, like China did, your research begins to stagnate and you don't research anything new on military level because you are the strongest power in the region and you just don't need new tech.
That's why China lost it's power.

In Europe however, it was a perpetual struggle between numberous nations to have power and that inspired continual military innovations.

So scientific progress in CivX (=the larger the civ, the more research) has nothing, but really really nothing, to do with how it goes in reality.
Scientific progress is inspired by need for new and better technology.

The CivX research system isn't even worth being called a simplification of reality; it's just crap.

Therefore, because I don't believe lazy Firaxis will try to better research (BTW if science wasn't linked to # cities and # population as in CivX, and a more realistic system was adopted, I would instantly drop my expansionistic tactics of all previous games) in Civ3, I suggested a while back some ideas on military tech leakage in the "Rise and fall of empires" thread of Foobar.

[Yakopepper]

To tell you the truth, I dont think reality can be properly protrayed with the amount of turns they allowed us in CivII. So to help capture the realism, they should increase (Im not sure by how much, maybe 2 fold) the amount of turns.

Ata--none of these little civs who suddenly became major powers did this without expansion by ways of conquer.

I believe that Civs who have frequent to constant warfare should be able to develop military science easier, or better yet, countries that do not engage in frequent war should have their military science stager<--for example china actually developed gunpowder centries before Europe did, but did not think of it as a weapon. Therefore European countries developed muskets and cannons before china. When the Europeans invaded the Aztecs they were far superior military wise, therefore making quick work of them. See what Im getting at.

And I agree with Maniac on that population shouldnt have anything to do with science. Im not sure howd ya fix this.

What do you think?

Daniel

[Atahualpa]

I think all you need to do is tell the AI, that when he is weak he should act differently than when he is strong!

ATa

[Atahualpa]

Minor/major civ! In the 18th century england would be a major civ, because it was far ahead in science. Now, do you think it could have gained any new technologies from any minor civ, civs like belgium or others. What do you mean when speaking of major/minor civ: expansion? I mean scientific strength. So, a major civ couldnt obtain lots of good advances from a minor civ, because then the minor civ, would have been much ahead of the major civ and therefor be no minor civ.

But, as you can see, the major/minor civ idea is only a problem. What if a small empire is far ahead in science, what is it major or minor. Or what about a big empire that is far behind in science and weapon technology: major or minor?

I may have a solution to the population doesnt equal science problem. Read: http://www.firaxis.com/ubb/Forum6/HTML/000187.html

I quote it for you:

The world isnt build up this way that the civ with the highest population produces most of the science or money, or else, china would be the major world power today (because, in a civ game it would). The problem is that more people do not necessary create more science. Some educated people create much more science than a mass of farmers! Therefore I think it is necessary that lower size cities dont produce any science at all and that science production starts in cities with size 4 or 5! In addition, scientific buildings like libraries, universities have to more powerful, but also more expensive. I also think that specialists like the tax collector or the researcher should be much more powerful. Maybe there can be different types of specialists. Like a researcher when the city has no scientific buildings. When there is a library, you can have a librarian (who is better than a researcher) and when you have a university you can have a scientist (who is better than a librarian)... . This system would enforce the use of specialists and of course would again enforce the need of large cities to support those specialists (they eat like normal citizen). I dont know if this is really a solution to the 2nd problem, but anyway, I think its worth to consider!

Of course the whole thing has to be balanced!

Ata

[Maniac]

Don't understimate my country - Belgium - or more specific Flanders. IMHO they were important in history (until that Spanish Farnese conquered Antwerp and all intellectuals went away to the north, Holland).
But of course nothing compared with the Dutch, who some would consider as a minor civ.
Other 'major' countries have learned things of them, eg sea things I suppose. But there were, as already said, also many 'scientists' here, so too new discoveries in physics, medicine...

Never mind.

About Atahualpa's idea.

I don't think that (only science from size 4, 5) will solve the problem.
You're right that in the beginning the perfectionist would have an advantage because his cities can grow while the expansionist has to build Settlers.
But he looses that advantage fairly quickly because no matter how big that perfectionist's city/ies may be, after a while a bunch of small cities still beat the large.
So I think in your idea, the # population is still too important.
BTW, then China would still have the best research since practically all their cities can be considered above size 5.

Actually, although most people come up with complex solutions to make something more realistic, I think for the research system, it has to be made simplier to be more realistic.
Oh, I just came up with something new while writing this (but I think it is already proposed somewhere in the list).
A library is always needed to gain a fairly amount of research points.
So no matter how big your empire is, if it is full of analfabetics (read, if none of the cities has a library), they won't generate many new ideas.
And since expansionists build libraries pretty late, the perfectionist has an advantage.

But then there is still the same problem as with Atahualpa's suggestion.
After a while the expansionist stops expanding and also turns himself to empire-building.
Then he could build a library in every city and again pass the perfectionist.

Damn, I'm writing this while I just got the idea, so I only see now I haven't solved anything with my idea.

Ok, different approach. (Sigh)

This has also been proposed I think.
When you discover something, the tech is only known in one city and then it spreads over your entire empire. This should go fairly quickly in a small perfectionist empire connected with roads, but very slow in a large empire not connected with roads (an expansionist doesn't care about TI building in the beginning of the game).

Hmm, I'm continiously talking about a expansionist, but I'm actually referring to my tactic, so I'm not sure my way of doing is common to all expansionists.

So, now we already have two things that benefit perfectionists and are a drawback to expansionists. Not seen together, they may seem minor, but taken together this may get really annoying for my (the expansionist's) research efforts.
Especially that road thing since that will create backyard regions in your empire that are significantly back in technology and ergo can't contribute science to a next technology that had the just discovered - but not yet arrived in that backyard region - as a prerequisite. So even in a large empire that may mean it will still only be a few core cities that do real scientific progress.

Yes, this may be it!... until the discovery of Railroad where communication and transport gets that quick new techs spread immediately.

Until now :
1) library needed
2) newly discovered techs aren't suddenly known in your entire empire - more realistic BTW.
3) and if a prerequisite tech isn't yet known in that region, they may not contribute science points to the following item.

But that doesn't matter in late game for reasons already mentioned above.

Let's pay some more attention to that analfabetiscm.
Perhaps not make library necessary for research, just say that without a library in the city, only a maximum amount of science icons may be actually added to the tech that's researched.
So, just some unbalanced example,
A city produces 10 science icons, but because it has no library only 5 are actually used.
If you build eg a University, that maximum number should increase.
Other similar buildings, school, research lab...

Perhaps the SE Research category should in- or decrease that maximum number with +1 = 5.5 icons maximum added, +2 = 6...
This should be easier with the x10 system (if you still don't know what I mean with it, then you should definitely read some posts of me in Civ3 - Ideas for The List or whatever that forum was called again).

Oh, BTW, in CivX you could split up your trade into taxes, science and luxuries.
Recall Science to Education.
I always wondered how an ancient government could support research.
As if more money automatically meant more science.
Perhaps this is now true, but it certainly isn't representable for the whole history.

Now to get back to where I was talking about.
Where was I talking about?

Oh yes, Research category.


Um, I'm out of ideas for now, I'm afraid.

But I think you get where I'm heading too.
Make population less important.
Ideally, it should have nothing to do with population and just say that every civ researches at the same speed, no matter how many trade, how mane cities or how many populatio you have; and that the research speed is only affected by how much money you put in education (BTW, isn't putting 70% of your trade in science-education abnormal. Belgium puts *only* one thirth of all it's taxes in education. Which other country can say that? So in all Civ games eg 70% is super unrealistic) and how good your science infrastructure is.

Ok, now I really have to stop. Done with my opus.

M@ni@c

[Atahualpa]

Dont stop M@ni@c! Come on, we'll solve that problem in this thread!

Okay, I think you were pretty good with your maximum science theory, but still doesnt solve the problem.
When you dont want population to influence your science rate, then you mustn think that population generates science!
Lets get backt to the specialist idea (in the quote above):
When a city is built there is only very little science to get, may a maximum of 2 per city (=base amount). But, when you turn some of your farmers into specialists (researchers) then you gain a lot more science! Lets say about 8 per researcher. Then, when you build a library, the base-amount is raised to 4 and your researcher is upgraded to a librarian. This librarian produces 12 science points. Now, by building a university, the base amount is raised to 6 and the librarian is upgraded to a lecturer (or teacher) and generates 18 science points. Now, the last building would be a science-laboratory and then the base amount is raised to 8 and the lecturer is upgraded to a scientist who generates 27 science points. So, as said above, you need larger cities to support those specialists!
The problem that rises with this method is: that you are very dependant on specialists and you need quite a lot of them. But, a lot scientists means a lot food. But, I have a solution to this (you didnt thought eh?): Its horribly unrealistic that most of your men are outside in the fields and harvest food. In industrialized countries, about 5%-10% of the people work in the agriculutral sector, so I think that with certain advances, your people harvest more food, so that in the end, about 30% of the cities people are factory workers (another kind of specialists, could be named blue-collar worker as well), 10% are farmers and 30% are scientists and 30% are white-collar worker (who add to the cities income). And these 10% farmers should be enough to support the city! Just look at Moo2! In the end, you have about 2 million farmers, and the 28 million rest is divided upon miners and scientists (1 million=1 pop icon). In Moo2, your farmers output is increased by some improvements (weather control, to name one), which could also be a way.
Anyway, have we solved this problem now? Not really, eh?
Well, because someone that expands quite quickly is not so good in the beginning, but then when his cities reach the size where they can support people he boosts up. But well, what do you do in the beginning anyway? Settler-City-Settler-City! So, why allowing a 3 city nation to become as strong as someone who took the risk and expanded.

Well, M@ni@c, its your turn!
Ata

[Imran Siddiqui]

Hmm, lets see:

English
French
Spanish
Germans
Russians
Polish
Swedish
Denmark
Vikings
Greeks
Romans
Ottomans
Arabs
Egyptains
Mongols
Chinese
Japanese
Indians
Zulus
Portugese
Americans
Iroquois
Sioux
Aztecs
Mayans
Incas
Australians
Canadians
Brazilians
Ethiopians (or any other African Power)

That makes 30....

Can we have all of these in one game? I'd say no.. I'd say only 15 MAX to a game.

[Atahualpa]

Id say you forgot Austria-Hungary!

Nevertheless, 16 is a must everything more than that, why not?

Ata

[Yakopepper]

Imran.....

You forgot some..
Babylonians
Persians
Carthaginians
Byzantine
Celts

I do think the first two are too important to exclude. The last 3 arent so important but could still be included. Im sure you just forgot them and didnt do it on purpose. If you're gonna include civs such as Polish, Incan, and Mayan, you've why not include these.

Daniel

[Theben]

I'm not sure if the Celts should get their own empire, at least if we're going by historical major/minor civs. The Roman word for barbarian was Celtoi, meaning everyone north/northeast of the empire. Of course, I also don't see any reason to go by historical major/minor civs either; we're recreating history, right?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Oh, right Yak!

Babylonians
Persians
Carthagians
Celts
Byzantines

Babs and Persians are definate as are the Carthagianans and Celts. I don't know about the Byzantines though.

Of course, we'll leave like 50 spaces open for man-made civs

[Yakopepper]

I just think we should give the players a VERY wide range of civs to choose from. In my opinion they should include such ancient civs as the Hittite, Sumerian, Mycenaean, Minoan, Indus Valley, Nubia, but most people dont care about them. ]

As For Byzantine, they may not have had the brilliance or prestige as other more well known civs, but they stood quit a long time.

As for the Celts, I really dont care for them, its just they had'em on CivII, I dont see why they should have'em on civIII?

I also dont think Countries such as Canada, Australia, Poland, Denmark, Brazil and the Ethiopians should be on there, basically because I dont think of them as Civilizations! Actually, I dont think America is a Civilization either, but they have had a more signigicant impact. It would be quit unwise to leave them off.

Dont get me wrong here, I understand perfecetly why a lot of people want to see them on there, but I dont see what their significance(sp??) is in history!

Daniel
[This message has been edited by Yakopepper (edited September 30, 1999).]

[Atahualpa]

I'd say, leave most of the ancient civs out and only include the most important. I would never play byzantines or persians or something like that, however, include more of the modern civs: United States of America, Canada, Mexico, Brasilia, Argentinia, Portugal, Spain, France, Germany, United Kingdom, Ireland, Iceland, Italy, Austria, Hungary, Poland, and the northern ones (I dont know their english names), Soviet Union, China, India, Mongol(sp?), Iran, Iraq, ...........

But at least, include every country that the game is sold to.

ATa