Civ 4 - Fit for Minors?

[Fosse]

Fans of Civilization have long been talking about minor civilizations playing a role in the next Civ game. The topic of minor civs pops up all the time on these threads, and while there is certainly not universal demand for their inclusion in Civ 4, there is a great deal of interest. In fact, there is an extent to which minor civs are being taken for granted, as they are already assumed in several present threads and polls about numbers of civs, barbarians, culture, and just about any other thread.

What there is not, however, is a clear idea of what various people mean when they make the call for minor civilizations. Do we envision a revamped representation of barbarians, replacing camps with cities? Would we like to see limits imposed on an otherwise normal civ (ie, no more than 4 cities, or no diplomacy, 30% tech rate, etc)? Do we want promotion and demotion between minor and major civs? Should minor civs spring up at random in unclaimed spaces, or be seeded at the start of the game?

Aside from defining what we think minor civs should be, we should talk about why we want them in the game. What does adding minor civs bring to the game that simply adding more regular civs does not? Would minor civs amount to a "killer feature?" Or would they be an extra nonsense layer that just causes trouble?

[GePap]

The difference between and mayor and minor civ should be in the AI and its expansionist policies.

So in essence it would be like a regular civ held back-the issue if one of how to balance more players with a limited AI- so if you had many independent players that acted more like govs. and not entire civs, you could with the current AI have minor civs.

And that is why I want minor civs- to have a more complex experience by dealing with more cultures. Again, its a balance between the capabilities of the AI and the number of civs-the more civs, the worse the strain on the AI and the less effective the big civs are- better to have a situation in which most of the map is populated and civlized without that having to mean a few vast empires.

Now, on the idea of civs moving between the two- that is very possible-it would simply be an issue of a civ being handled by the regular AI versus the more limited minor AI. So we could have an event for example in which a huge empire civ breaks down into several minor civs, while a minor civ elsewhere all of a sudden begins its drive towards empire.

I seriously doubt any of this will be in the game thought. But they are nice ideas to flesh out.

[Lord_Davinator]

A nice idea to avoid 2 or 3 hugmongous civs... but how would the computer know to switch between major and minor?

but even if such a switching capability is not present any civ technically can be a minor civ in a game, and would just be an uber conservative civ... It would make wars last shoreter... or longer... depending on the diplomacy... would add a lot to the game

[Solomwi]

Perhaps hamper a minor civ by assigning one trait at random, and, of course, no UU. I like GePap's ideas on it, but don't know how well we could rely on a multi-tiered AI as opposed to handicaps.

If we want to shuffle civs between categories, perhaps every civ that comes into existence after 4000 BC starts with two traits, which are locked (as in unavailable). Upon reaching a certain size (or whatever we wanted the requirement to be), one trait is unlocked, and a second threshold could unlock the second trait. A civ that fell below these thresholds would find one or both traits they have enjoyed no longer available to them. That's assuming that taking away a trait would be helpful in delineating minor and major, and not just lead to these civs being easy targets for the player to swallow whole.

I love the idea of an empire splintering into several minor civs, or one major and several others minor.

[Jon Shafer]

I thought you were talking about minors... as in those under the age of 18.

[Drachasor]

Originally posted by Trip
I thought you were talking about minors... as in those under the age of 18.

As did I. There are ways it could be made unfit for minors that are realistic, I suppose.


Anyhow, as far as minor civilizations are concerned, this is what I envision:

You can setup any number of minor civlizations when you make a game, up to some limit given the map size. At the maximum amount, there would be very little room to build additional cities. Instead, via culture or war, you would have to take over Minor Civs. On lower settings, there can be a lot of room for expansion by building cities (even at higher ones, depending on the number of islands and whatnot, this can be the case at times).

Minor Civilizations are between 1 and 3 cities, leaning towards 1 (very few would be 3, and they all start at 1). They should largely be archaic or ancient names of the standard civilizations, with the properties to match, though they have no UU. They can build improvements, units, and other things, but their culture is invisible and they do not attack others (but will defend).

If a major civlization is destroyed, then a minor civilization that is well-located (not near anyone else) becomes major. It gets a technology boost, and it's accumulated culture is no longer invisible (this will mean that it will quickly convert surrounding minor civs to it).

Barbarians should also be allowed to take cities. Doing this they can steal military unit giving tech. They always use cities to solely pump out military troops (unless they can't support anymore for financial reasons, at which point the city produces nothing). If a Barbarian Civ is in a better position than a minor civ when a major civ is destroyed, then the Barbarians can become a major civ; with generic barbarian traits (whatever those are). This allows them to build improvements and non-military units, as well as negotiate with other civs.

Now, after thinking things over, I think that generally every conquered civilization should maintain its ethnic heritage. There should be some way that you need to deal with the various ethnic values/wants/disagreements when managing your civilization. Therefore, if you want to conquer the world you'll have to find some way to appease those you are conquering, otherwise they might revolt and refound their civilization (perhaps this would allow you to exceed the max number of civs in the game). This would make it so that as you take over more groups it becomes more difficult to manage them all which means that conquering the world would not become a cake walk after a certain point.

Naturally the minor civs each have their own ethnic group, so in games with a lot of minor civs you have to deal with that. Perhaps they should be easier to deal with, perhaps not. Perhaps taking cities with culture should make those citizens easier to appease, perhaps not. In any case, martial law should be possible for all governments, in terms of dealing with civil unrest caused by ethnic groups.

Oh, and it would be nice if there was immigration from cities to other cities in your empire, but not necessary.

Anyhow, that's an idea I've been tossing around in my head.

-Drachasor

[Brent]

I'm not completely sure how minor civs should be treated. One thing I wonder about is how many city names they should have available. One reason why I want minor civs is to include some that would otherwise not be in. I would like to be able to use a minor civ as a major civ, but I want plenty of city names available. I realize it was dumb of me when I listed Troy as a major civ I wanted in the game, unless there are enough names of people usable as city names. Anyway, I would definitely want to be able to set up a minor civ as a major civ in pregame setup, but I don't care about switching in- game. Anyway the main reason I want them in is to include civs that would be difficult to justify as major civs.

The limits suggested don't really appeal to me, but some are interesting.

What about a game with minor civs and zero major civs?

[The diplomat]

Birth of the Federation implemented Minor civs in a good way. They never expanded but you could engage in diplomacy and trade with them. You could conquere them, ally with them or get them to join your empire. If you did conquer them or get them to peacefully join, you would get access to special buildings that could enhance your empire.

Something similar could be done with civ4. Make minor civs such that they never expand, but can provide bonuses to you if you conquer or make them join you.

[Fosse]

Originally posted by Trip
I thought you were talking about minors... as in those under the age of 18.

Ha! Who wants to be that if Civ IV were somehow made inappropriate for youth that it would sell even better?

Well, I'll post some of my own thoughts about what I think minor civs should be.

[This is long, but you can skip right to the numbered list... if you can't handle it! ]

I think that the reason people started asking for the was that we all want a world full of many, many civilizations, but we realize that our computers would choke on the AI required to run that many civilizations. Plus, it's easier to keep track of trade, diploacy, aliances and other things with only a handful of civs than with dozens.

So giving us 8 to 16 major civilizations keeps AI turn lenght down and makes keeping track of diplomacy and war manageable (though not with the Civ III diplomacy screen). Then, throw a dozen or so "minor" civilizations into the mix to fill in the cracks and make for a more interesting, dynamic, and realistic world.


Because of the need to keep AI requirements and diplomacy management to a minimum, I do not favor simply crippling a few otherwise normal civs, as with several earlier suggestions. A civ that doesn't expand, but is otherwise normal is still working land, trading, etc.

I want minor civs to have a completely different set of paramaters for their own goals and abilities, and for our interactions with them:

1) A Minor Civ is a Tribe from the available civs, that can be set as minor by the player or at random. The Player is always a Major Civ. Minor Civs start with one city and a handful of defenders (same as majors).

2) A Minor Civ's cities will work the best food tile in their radius to determine city size growth. They recieive gold from the land they work (or whatever system Civ 4 uses), but no shields
The Reason: Represents agrarian and simple cultures focus of food rather than production. They can use the gold later.

3) Minor Civs do not build units, but instead have them appear in their cities (1 unit each city) every X number of turns. These units will either be military or settlers (much less often)
The Reason: No build orders for the AI to think about, production queues, etc. Settler production won't reduce city size.

4) Minor Civs want two things: Money and Survival. They get gold from cities they conquer, plus more units per X turns (more cities to get them at).


DIPLOMACY

1) Minor Civs are either at peace or war with everyone else, major or minor.
The Reason: This keeps them out of diploatic relations, and keeps things simple.

2) Majors can demand tribute from Minors. If they Minor can afford to pay and has a weak military, they will pay. If not, they will eithe refuse or declare war.

3) Majors can pay Minors to start a war with a 3rd party, or to end a war.

4) Minors can only be at war if it is declared upon them, if they are paid, or after a tribute demand.


TRADE

1) Any resources in a Minor's land can be traded to another civ for money.

CULTURE

1) Each Minor city generates a small amount of culture per turn (to prevent wholesale absorbtion).

SCIENCE

1) Each minor civ absorbs techs known to majors it has DIRECT CONTACT with (has met their units, are within so many tiles of their border) after that tech has been discovered by 50% of the major Civs. This determines what kind of units they can get.
The Reason: They are always backwards, but will be close to their neighbors. So a minor Civ might be more advanced than an isolated major.

TRAITS

1) Each minor civ has the traits of its Tribe. These traits influence the types of units they generate, the amount of gold they make from land, and their disposition

PROMOTIONS

1) If a major slot opens up, then the most poweful Minor becomes a major. This opens full diplomatic relations (maintaining current war and peace status), and automatically builds several key city improvments in the minor's cities (depending on era, in early game, no improvments, in modern perhaps marketplace, temple). These buildings can be influenced by traits.




That's all I have for now... but it seems like plenty!

[GePap]

I think that is a very nice system Fosse-except the notion of NO internal buildings. They should get some basic buildings as they get richer or bigger- a temple, a marketplace, an aqueduct or so.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by The diplomat
Birth of the Federation implemented Minor civs in a good way. They never expanded but you could engage in diplomacy and trade with them. You could conquere them, ally with them or get them to join your empire. If you did conquer them or get them to peacefully join, you would get access to special buildings that could enhance your empire.

Something similar could be done with civ4. Make minor civs such that they never expand, but can provide bonuses to you if you conquer or make them join you.

Imperialism 2 has similar minor nations, though they dont seem to modernize their armed forces much, or develop their resources (outsiders can do that after making the appropriate agreements and buying land)

[MORON]

I don't believe in minor civs. Why have civs if they are so half assed anyway. A minor civ to me is a civ that has been smashed up badly and poses no threat.

I do believe in NEW civs though.

BARB CAPTURE CITY = NEW CIV

And much rioting/anarchy/captured capital = new civ perhaps....

[Drachasor]

The idea of minor civs is to represent those civilizations that happen to not have the drive or what-have-you to be world-powers. They have their own culture, but simply no desire to expand. That doesn't mean they wouldn't be willing to join a more ambitious civ though.

As such I like modeling them as simply smaller civs that basically never expand. They'll build some units, some improvements, and maybe 1 or 2 cities (all civs should only start with 1 city), but at a very slow pace and they'll never get more than 3 cities.

Now, there will be different types of minor civs. Some will be Barbarians (e.g. Viking-esque), others will be much more peaceful (e.g. Hawaiians). The distinguishing feature though, is that they don't expand, they are just stuck in a basic rut of how they go about living. Generally speaking.

Ideally the tech thing could be handled like so: Lots of technology can travel to a relatively unadvanced civ from a more advanced one, but it takes a little time, and the "latest techs" don't diseminate for a very long time (if at all). This way they can bring back a more civ2-style combat system, just flesh it out with many more gradations of units. More advanced units will slaughter units 2 or more upgrades behind (panzers >> cavalry), but if a civilization bothers to upgrade to the latest tech, then they can do ok (but it might be costly if you are behind in tech).

Japan is an example of this phenomenon, and generally that's how things work. It is just that the "minor civs" don't bother upgrading or changing their ways as much, though there might be a few exceptions. Not to offend anyone, but the Native Americans (or American Indians, or however they wish to be called) were like a minor civ in this manner for a long time. They'd use some weapons of the west, but largely they didn't change their ways. They didn't learn how to make guns or anything else they could have gathered from the West. Japan, on the other hand, did their very best to learn everything they could.

So hopefully you won't need some special tech disemination system for minor civs, and it will simply be part of the general features of cIV. Of course, the tech thing is an entirely different debate, and not the focus of this thread.

-Drachasor

[GePap]

Originally posted by Drachasor
Not to offend anyone, but the Native Americans (or American Indians, or however they wish to be called) were like a minor civ in this manner for a long time. They'd use some weapons of the west, but largely they didn't change their ways. They didn't learn how to make guns or anything else they could have gathered from the West. Japan, on the other hand, did their very best to learn everything they could.

This is not correct. lets look at the Native American civs in the game:

The Aztecs and Inca were expansionist empires with large armies, burocracies and massive cities. The Maya had such a period that ended with massive intercine warfare and ecological collapse due to overusage. The Iriqouis Confederacy was an active diplomatic player in the NE in the game between the European empires until the rise of the US.

None of these are the actions of "minor civs" You forget as well that Japan first saw guns and their potential in the 1600's, but then closed tiself off from the outside world and only opened up again in 1853 when the difference in technology and tech, not so vast i the 1600's when they closed off, had grown too vast in the last 200 years.

The fact is the Aztecs and Inca were not given the chance to adapt, as disease and invasion brought them down dramatically. No civ can survive loosing 70-90% of its population in just 20 years.

[Fosse]

Originally posted by GePap
I think that is a very nice system Fosse-except the notion of NO internal buildings. They should get some basic buildings as they get richer or bigger- a temple, a marketplace, an aqueduct or so.

I'm glad you like it. I thought for a long time abou thte city improvments part. The reason I decided the way I did was that by not giving Minor Civs improvments, the game does not have to account for building those for potentially dozens of cities or applying their effects each turn.

I should have stated, and failed to that:

Minor Civs are immune to unhappiness and growth limitations

So they don't really need the buildings. The benefits they gain from being immune to such negative effects are more than lost due to the rest of their limitations.


Though to be honest, I have no idea if limiting buildings would honestly simplify things for either the AI or the player. I wanted the simplest possible proposal that seemed like fun, because I know that Firaxis isn't looking to add hugely complicated systems (unless we maybe whine really hard. ).

[Fosse]

Originally posted by Drachasor
As such I like modeling them as simply smaller civs that basically never expand. They'll build some units, some improvements, and maybe 1 or 2 cities (all civs should only start with 1 city), but at a very slow pace and they'll never get more than 3 cities.

You and I are very much on the level of what Minor civs should represent, Drachasor. I still stand by more major differences between major and minor than slowing growth though. The reasons being twofold.

1) If you can create a game that will run quickly enough to be playable that has perhaps twice the minor civs as it does major civs, and the minor civs are almost exactly like the major ones, then why not just design a gam with three times the major civs and no minors?

Basically, if you can spare the computer power to run that many civs, why not simply drop the distinction and let all civs expand until they run out of room. The big guys and little guys will be differentiated the same way they always have been.

Now, as much as that sounds awesome, it brings up my second point:

2) Stripping Minor Civs of many of the Civ trappings means less to deal with on the geo-political stage.

Remember how hard it is to keep track of just 16 civs with diplomacy and trade in Civ 3.

[Fosse]

double post

[Fosse]

Originally posted by MORON
I don't believe in minor civs. Why have civs if they are so half assed anyway.

As we've stated earlier:

Because we all want lots of Civs, but having too many regular civs would likely prove too much for both computers and players. Thus, a compromise in the form of some sort of minor civilization.

[Solomwi]

Fosse

On the buildings, the only one I think would greatly hamper playspeed would be harbors (due to calculating trade routes), and minor civs shouldn't be trading overseas anyway.

Either solution (allowing shields, but only for improvements or your immunity fix) works for me.

[Drachasor]

Originally posted by GePap
This is not correct. lets look at the Native American civs in the game:

The Aztecs and Inca were expansionist empires with large armies, burocracies and massive cities. The Maya had such a period that ended with massive intercine warfare and ecological collapse due to overusage. The Iriqouis Confederacy was an active diplomatic player in the NE in the game between the European empires until the rise of the US.

Right, so you picked the two notable exceptions. There are a lot of other civilizations in North America that did have a lot of time to adapt, but they kept to the old ways.

I wasn't talking about the ones you could pick from, I was talking about the ones you can't choose, and why that might be. Though, some civilizations that were minor do become major, and other ones never really adapted, but they are included as major (such as the Sioux--sp?).

-Drachasor

[MORON]

Yes, and I took over china with armor before they discovered gunpowder, so china is a minor civ.

There are no "minor" civs. Every civilization that is up to city level is perfectly capable of developing new technology and expansionism. All the civilizations that are considered "failures to adopt" never had the time to do so. For a fundamental technological revolution it takes around a century of trade and war before the infanstructure and culture attitudes match up and many civs are wipe out as a dozen kights and musketeers march into their cities.

Even the American natives, not really a major civ, have changed their lifestyle completely in two generations, from static agrian culture to normanic ones with horseback riding and guns before being wiped out. Normadic lifestyle is adopted for military reasons, just in case you are wondering.

As for the lack of technology for some civilizations, it is simply the result of bad starting location and latter starting times. (some civs only had cities since say 1000AD) Consider the polynesians with nothing but sea and very little trade with the asians, or the Aztecs that have no negibours within reach to trade whatsoever. While this is happening, the largest landmass of euro-asia has lots of tech trade and huge population, it is not surprising that the europeans managed to expand while Aztecs did not.

As for technological regression, consider the fact that an landmass the size of europe can suffer from it, it is not a trait of "minor" civs but merely something that happens by chance.

Because we all want lots of Civs, but having too many regular civs would likely prove too much for both computers and players. Thus, a compromise in the form of some sort of minor civilization.

My computer how has GHz levels of power, while civ has NOT gotten more complex than say civ2 which runs on a original pentium well enough. The only process that takes alot of processing power is AI, and we certainly can program an "Lite" AI for powers that are suppose to be stupid and weak.

As for too many civs for me, the obvious solution is to CRUSH THEM ALL

[Fosse]

Originally posted by MORON
very civilization that is up to city level is perfectly capable of developing new technology and expansionism ..... As for the lack of technology for some civilizations, it is simply the result of bad starting location and latter starting times. (some civs only had cities since say 1000AD)

Well, Civilization has no mechanism for civs starting after 4000 BC, though there were people in the land where civilizations eventually came to rise for tens of thousands of years. Perhaps you could imagine a model for minor civs that allows them to inhabit the land, have a unique culture, and eventually have a chance to develop into a full-fledged civilization?

And it also has no mechanism other than a city to represent that a culture is present in a given part of land, so giving minor civs cities seems the most appropriate way to represent nomadic territory, villiage cites, etc that might be inhabitied by an identifiable culture that hasn't developed onto the world stage.


A system in which borders simply existed around a handful of huts would work just fine for me, since it is what the game is representing that matters.


What we are searching for is a way to include the fact that by the time civilization rolled around the world is for the most part covered by people. An effective New World scenario, to adequatly represent the Europeans carving up an inhabited land, in Civ 3 would have to either be with an empty America, dozens of barbarian huts, or just a bunch of cities with crappy units in them. None of those sound very compelling.

My computer how has GHz levels of power, while civ has NOT gotten more complex than say civ2 which runs on a original pentium well enough.

But people with high GHz levels and tons of RAM had to sit for minutes at a time between turns playing with 16 civs. That's not exactly running well enough.

The only process that takes alot of processing power is AI, and we certainly can program an "Lite" AI for powers that are suppose to be stupid and weak.

I could not be more opposed to this idea. If civ is doing poorly its AI should kick into high gear, if anything. My above ideas for minor civ AI were simply to excise its AI as much as possible, so that one minor civ or twenty would not add signifigantly to turn times. Downgrading a major AI civ that peforms poorly is unlikely to help, especially since it is the big AI civilizations that take forever to move their units, not the guys with only three cities left.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Drachasor


Right, so you picked the two notable exceptions. There are a lot of other civilizations in North America that did have a lot of time to adapt, but they kept to the old ways.

I wasn't talking about the ones you could pick from, I was talking about the ones you can't choose, and why that might be. Though, some civilizations that were minor do become major, and other ones never really adapted, but they are included as major (such as the Sioux--sp?).

-Drachasor

two? I mentioned 4.

Besides the fact that civs in the Americas started behind without many of the advantages that civs in Eurasia had, most areas were not the friendliest for civs.

As Moron said, civs adapt to their surroundings: th Sioux started as agriculturalist, but then they got the horse and turned to nomidic hunters becuase that was more powerful.

[MORON]

An effective New World scenario, to adequatly represent the Europeans carving up an inhabited land, in Civ 3 would have to either be with an empty America, dozens of barbarian huts, or just a bunch of cities with crappy units in them. None of those sound very compelling.

But that was what were there. Crappy cities that can be conqured by a thousand man, poorly armed huts that gets overrun by settlers and an comparatively low population density and the occational nomandic barbarian that smacks a settler.

Applying history in gameplay terms the new world is effectively empty, so empty that they had to ship a huge number of people from africa. In civ we don't care about culture, we care about pops, cities, shields, gold, beakers and panzer armies. If the new world had none of that than it is effectively empty.

[Drachasor]

Originally posted by GePap


two? I mentioned 4.

Besides the fact that civs in the Americas started behind without many of the advantages that civs in Eurasia had, most areas were not the friendliest for civs.

As Moron said, civs adapt to their surroundings: th Sioux started as agriculturalist, but then they got the horse and turned to nomidic hunters becuase that was more powerful.

Oops, I can't count.

Anyhow, yes, all civilizations adapt, the question is about how much they adapt. The Aztecs and Incas really didn't have time to adapt, and the more northern Native American tribes didn't really adapt all they much. They hunted buffalo before, and with the horse they could just do it more efficiently.

Anyhow, I made my case based on the Japanese, who quickly and rapidly took up industrialization, and did their upmost to educate or modernize their people and technology. They are a great example of a "major civ". There are some examples that are inbetween, and other examples of civilizations they adapt very, very little. There are primitive tribes today, for example, that could change, but they don't. For some cultures, adapting to a more modern lifestyle is something they shy away from. Though that can change with the right impetus. They might trade for better goods, but they won't learn how to make them themselves. A civilization that won't learn how to make new things* is one that cannot be termed "major" in the long run.

-Drachasor

[GePap]

Originally posted by Drachasor

Anyhow, yes, all civilizations adapt, the question is about how much they adapt. The Aztecs and Incas really didn't have time to adapt, and the more northern Native American tribes didn't really adapt all they much. They hunted buffalo before, and with the horse they could just do it more efficiently.

Tribes like the Sioux might have hunted a buffalo here or there for meat, but nowhere to the extent they did after the horse, if only becuase it was not that effective. After the horse they stopped being semi-nomadic subsistance farmers and became nomadic hunters, and they survived a hell of a long more doing that than they would have staying in their old camps when the US begun expanding westwards.

A civilization that won't learn how to make new things* is one that cannot be termed "major" in the long run.

The Mongols were not partiuclarly inventive- I can't think of any ideas they provided the world becuase other civs did not even adapt their military structure-but they are a mayor civ simply by the fact they conquered the biggest land empire in history and in doing so changed history.

A minor civ is a definition in the game simply to maximize the number of players without using up far too much AI power and creating a venue for dynamism in the lineup of civs, to combat the ECS as it was termed. It isn't a "judgement" on the qualities of a civilization.

[Fosse]

Originally posted by GePap
A minor civ is a definition in the game simply to maximize the number of players without using up far too much AI power and creating a venue for dynamism in the lineup of civs, to combat the ECS as it was termed. It isn't a "judgement" on the qualities of a civilization.

VERY well put, GePap. Far more direct than my page long rants!

[Abdul Alhazred]

Why not making a new the list with it ?

[GePap]

Overall I like Fosse' proposal best in terms of not allowing a minor civ to have a build queue and so forth to save on AI power.

As I said, I think we need to allow for building imporvements to be created in these cities randomly as units are, if only to make the MInors richer, but also from a self-interested bit, to make their cities worth taking without too much problem, and to make their possible accension to Mayor civ status simpler.

What gets built would be based on the civ characteristics of the minor civ.

I think that the list of Minor civs and Mayor civs should be the same-ie, you can play any civ in the game as a mayor civ. Of course, this means a significant set of civs to choose from, which would mean massive storage space if bells and whistles like animated leaderheads were instituted. I would rather have animated leaderheads out of the game.

[Fosse]

Originally posted by GePap
As I said, I think we need to allow for building imporvements to be created in these cities randomly as units are, if only to make the MInors richer, but also from a self-interested bit, to make their cities worth taking without too much problem, and to make their possible accension to Mayor civ status simpler.

Well... that does make sense the more I think about it. My mind is changed. Now, where is Soren?

I think that the list of Minor civs and Mayor civs should be the same-ie, you can play any civ in the game as a mayor civ.

YES! Definatly

I would rather have animated leaderheads out of the game.

Please, get them out. Hundreds of megabytes for NOTHING. I'd find the atmosphere much more immersive with a simple realistic portrait and richer messages (as opposed to the jokey junk in Civ III).