Minor Civilizations = Barbs

Roman · May 1, 2001, 06:27

Several people have professed their indiference to the 7 civilization limit on the basis of their hopes that there will be minor civilizations in Civ 3. They base this (unfortunately) flawed assumption on the fact that Sid stated in a very early interview that they are planning to include minor civs. It must be noted that this interview is rather old and the game design has probably changed several times by then. Moreover, none of the profligate amount of previews that have recently started appearing even so much as mentioned minor civilizations, even though they have gone into extensive detail about the game.
The only subject mentioned in the previews that is related to minor civilizations is that barbarians will now have cities. It is becoming increasingly clear that this is what the minor civilizations will amount to

- and frankly that is not enough to compensate for the 7 civilization limit.

Ralf · May 1, 2001, 07:02

Roman quote from Only 7 civilizations...
"Ok, I think the point has now been made - after all this thread has reached 4 pages in just 3 days. Hence, I will now quieten down on this issue, but I would still like to hear from Firaxis whether the 7 civilization limit will be tweakable through text-files and if not what programming challenge stood in the way of that."

My underlining.

Well, why not follow your own statment, at least untill we know a little more about the whole picture.

Roman · May 1, 2001, 07:12

Good point, Ralf. I just cannot seem to get over the issue.

Russian King · May 1, 2001, 08:36

quote:

Originally posted by Roman on 05-01-2001 07:12 AM
Good point, Ralf. I just cannot seem to get over the issue.

hehe, poor, poor Roman. I just wish he had someone to give him more **x so that he stops complaining

Im a newbie here, so if this is offending on the forumns plz contact me.

Lord_Davinator · May 1, 2001, 08:41

hehehee... what else is there to say... would have been better to have minor civs of course would have increased the taste of the game...

lord of the mark · May 1, 2001, 10:03

quote:

Originally posted by Lord_Davinator on 05-01-2001 08:41 AM
hehehee... what else is there to say... would have been better to have minor civs of course would have increased the taste of the game...

I do hope we get minor civs. 7 major civs is enough, after all through most of history there are no more than 7 great powers dominating the global balance of power. But having 7 great powers without the lesser powers "filling in the space" does take away from the historical feel. especially on a real world map it would be nice to have at least 7 additional minor civs as objects for trade and conquest, if not full diplomacy. Optimally this would tie in to a more sophisticated hut/minor tribe model, where those minor tribes that do not join a large civ, instead grow into cities on their own, turning either "bad" (barb) or "good" (minor civ). The distinction being that barb cities send out barb attack units, minor civs develop and trade.

LOTM

Fintilgin · May 1, 2001, 11:14

Well, my problem with `minor civs' is I don't think nations should be shoe-horned into a major/minor role. Civilizations that once ruled large areas should be able to be reduced to a minor power and insignifigant nations should be able to rise to world-spaning prominence.

A major/minor distinction just feels artifical.

Obviously we don't know how it would be implimented, but that's my impression off the bat.

Joe

Wittlich · May 1, 2001, 11:16

quote:

Originally posted by Russian King on 05-01-2001 08:36 AM
hehe, poor, poor Roman. I just wish he had someone to give him more **x so that he stops complaining

Im a newbie here, so if this is offending on the forumns plz contact me.

RK, no, I don't think your post was in the least bit offensive. You're just poking fun at Roman...just like everyone else.

I would think Roman got a chuckle out of it.

Imran Siddiqui · May 1, 2001, 14:58

quote:

They base this (unfortunately) flawed assumption on the fact that Sid stated in a very early interview that they are planning to include minor civs.

Wrong again, Roman. You seem to be making an AWFUL lot of conclusions with little to back them up.

Minor Civs was in the FIRST EVER ANNOUNCEMENT for Civ3 by Jeff Morris. There is no counter-announcement saying Minors have been taken out. I should know. I was against Minor Civs, and wasn't too pleased when Jeff made the announcement that they were going to be in.

Roman · May 1, 2001, 17:16

Imran, unlike the AI, minor civs are a much more tangible element of the game, so it would be noticed by the previewers. Moreover the fact that minor civs were the first announcement just indicates how old the announcement is and decreases the reliability of the information contained therein.

Roman · May 2, 2001, 00:24

quote:

Originally posted by Russian King on 05-01-2001 08:36 AM
hehe, poor, poor Roman. I just wish he had someone to give him more **x so that he stops complaining

ROFLMAO

I wish that too.

Gramphos · May 2, 2001, 00:55

I think you might be right, but I can't stop hoping on Minor Civilizations.
In the Unofficial POLL on the topic the current Results shows that most civers want Minor Civilizations in the game.

I hope that the at least huts will be replaced with Minor Civilizations that you may choose to attack or negotiate with to get he bonus that came from them in earlier games.