Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Civ 4 the List: Civilizations

Collapse
X
Collapse
  •  

  • Civ 4 the List: Civilizations

    Introduction

    Here's the section for Civilizations, dealing with all the data about how Tribes, Civilizations, Special Rulers and Special Bonuses and options for civilizations.
    Thanks for reading,
    -List Administrator DarkCloud

    Summary

    Basically, most of the discussion centered around civ-customizability, civil war nation-splitting and, minor civs.

    There was a large debate on the merits of the inclusion of Israel as a major civilization with some people citing Israel's contributions to civilization and linking it with the ancient Judea of the past, and some people arguing that since Israel has not been around very long contiguously that it is different from Judea, and cannot stand as an empire of its own.

    However trivial that debate seems, it did open discussion about what constitutes a Major Tribe (a Civilization). Some suggested that only "Imperial" empires could be considered Civilizations. Others suggested that a Civilization was only game worthy if it had "expanded and controlled an extended area of land and exerted its culture and influence upon disparate groups." Nowadays, of course, with today's faster communication and globalization, communications are affected faster and culture is spread over a more varied region, therefore this debate is close to becoming moot- however, personally, I support this definition of a Civilization.

    Nevertheless, as you will read below and in the conclusion, there were several suggestion to the relative proliferations of civilizations, ranging from people's suggestions of a "Create-A-Civ" Machine, to Extensive Minor Tribes, to "Dynamic Civilizations" as well as tangentially related suggestions such as Civil-War Empire splitting.

    Related Threads

    {The List} Civilization traits, Nuclear Master
    {The List}Civilizations, civilleader
    {The List}Civilizations, DarkCloud
    {The List}Civilizations Version II , DarkCloud
    Barbarians become civilized? , Mojotronica
    Civilization specific golden ages, Tripledoc
    {The List} Nomads and Chiefdoms, Spiffor
    Civ IV fit for minors, Fosse
    Barbarians, Master Zen
    Civil Wars, Metaliturtle

    Index

    1.0.0 Types of Civs
    2.0.0 Rulers
    3.0.0 Colonies
    4.0.0 Immigration
    5.0.0 Nations' Compositions
    6.0.0 Proposed Civ Lists
    7.0.0 Civ Traits
    8.0.0 Civ Placement
    9.0.0 Unique Units
    10.0.0 Other
    Conclusion

    The Ideas

    ----
    1.0.0 Types of Civs
    ----

    1.1.0 Barbarian Civs

    *Barbarians, through capturing cities, could become civilizations themselves, over time. Thus we start with 8-10 civs on the map at the beginning and can end with 16 simultaneous civilizations.
    -narmox

    *Barbarians should be able to capture cities like they did in Civ II and start churning out their own units.
    -Rasputin

    *Barbarians should be able to trade
    -Azazel

    *Barbarians can be hired as mercenaries (Perhaps without a nationality [Like Privateers])
    *Barbarians can rent/loan/sell units
    *And if they are mercs there should be a chance (perhaps modified by your cultural strength and/or how much you paid for them (minimum, moderate, or high)or somethn) that they go independent or even turn against you since they are mercs after all (such as what german mercs did to the Romans occasionally)
    -Kramerman

    *If Barbarian civs don't generate Culture, then perhaps they could gain special Generals (Like Attila the Hun) or a "golden age" which will give them some culture. If they then conquer enough cities they can become a powerful military civ. Then again, if their golden age ends, or the leader dies this empire will likely fall apart.
    -ixnay

    *Instead of giving the Barbarians no culture, don't give them any Civ Attributes... Therefore they'd be weeded out through normal attrition after a short time
    *And if that wasn't enough of a handicap and barbs started overrunning actual Civ's you could give them a slight production handicap.
    -wrylachlan

    *New civs (like nomadic barbarians with strong armies) should appear at times to destroy weak civs because not only the Mongols, but a great variety of civs came out of nowhere. Those civs could be allowed to receive techs when conquering cities, so they can soon cope with their foes and not continue to live in the Stone Age...
    -Wernazuma III

    *I think that Barbarian 'civs' entering the industrial age should be given status as a regular civilization.
    -Panzeh

    *What if the barbs had their own research pool, a small number added to it each turn per settlement on the map.

    When the number adds up to a certain amount (average approx every 40 or 50 turns) one barbarian settlement somewhere in the world (determined at random) becomes a full-fledged Civ (using one of the unused Civs -- if all are used, it doesn't happen.) (Thanks to player's use of Barbarian settlements as Worker farms using Conquest's enslavement rules, this would be much more likely to occur.) Then the barb research pool drops back to zero again.

    The new civ starts at a tech level determined by the units the barbs are using at the time (Warriors, Horsemen etc...)
    -Mojotronica

    1.2.0 Civil Wars

    *In addition, some civilizations (ex: USSR) can split apart (like in Civ II), through a peaceful coup, or a civil war.
    -narmox

    *Which Civs are prone to splitting should be balanced with other characteristics.
    -Brent

    *Could be triggered with a certain chance by certain tech advances like Monotheism, Printing Press, Democracy or Abolishment etc. or by changing government.
    -Wernazuma III

    *During a Civil war two halves of the civ would be generated and split. They'd have to be in a locked war until one half again controls 2/3rds and then reunite. This would better reflect the temporary nature of most civil wars.

    With one or two exceptions: All cities separated from the capital by ocean or a certain (large) amount of tiles should be considered "colonies". When a Civil War should be triggered, the colonies would revolt and split permanently from the civ. The same goes for cities which once were conquered and are not completely assimilated.
    -Wernazuma III

    *All civs should have a chance of revolt if their capital is taken (as per civ2.)
    For example: The USA could split into Yankees and Confederates, etc...
    -Rasputin

    *There should be at least two rebel groups for every civilization
    -Stefu

    *It would be good if it were possible for a far-flung outpost of your empire to "declare independence". If the player agrees to this, they get serious diplomatic kudos; if they disagree, it's a war of independence. This would be a nice variation to the "civil war" idea.
    -Plotinus

    *Any civilization could split by adding North, South, East, West, New, Upper, Lower, Nieder, Occidental, Australis, Borealis before or after the original name for one or both civs. Some of these could depend on the civ, like Nieder for the Germans. North, South, East, West, Upper, Lower, and Nieder would be most likely when the breakoffs are still adjacent. New, Australis, and Borealis would be most likely for overseas breakoffs. A breakoff civ could use the name of its new capital.

    Preference would be given to historically appropriate, completely different names, such as the Afrikaners for the Dutch, Catalonia for Spain, or the Faroese for the Vikings.

    The game could begin with a civ already split into North and South, East or West, or Upper and Lower.

    A pregame setting could affect the frequency of breakoffs. A large map with few civs could spawn a lot of breakoffs. Breakoffs could be automatically disallowed for for a small map already basically full of civs.

    A breakoff could incorporate the name of the continent it is on, such as West Australia, West Antarctica, Central Africa, Central Asia, Central Europe, or North Greenland, whether you're playing on a real world map, or if the game assigns its own names to randomly generated continents (based on the presence of multiple civs of the same Culture Group?), or if the human player names continents.

    A breakoff could combine the original name with the name of a body of water it is on, such as Pacific America or Atlantic America.

    A breakoff could be named for a physical feature like The Andes, The Amazon, or Sahara, most likely randomly assigned based on terrain and/ or the original civ and/ or neighboring civs. For example, a new civ broken off from the Incas or near both the Incas and the Guarani could be called The Andes.

    If a particular game involves many different breakoffs from different civs, two adjacent breakoffs from different civs could merge.
    Any new civ either in the southern hemisphere or to the south of the civ it breaks from could be called Australia.

    A new civ's primary designation could be an acronym based on things like the name of the original civ, the government type, North, South, East, West, Upper, Lower, New, Monotheist, Pagan, or words that have no specific relation to game circumstances. If a government type becomes part of an acronym used as a civ's name, maybe that civ would tend to stick with that government type more than it otherwise would.
    -Brent

    1.2.1 Micro-Macro Cultural Groups and Civil Wars

    *Some major civs would have associated minor civs which make up a microculturegroup, you choose either the major civ, the microculturegroup, some but not all of the minor civs, or none of the above. Some major civs do not have associated microculturegroups, some mcgs do not have associated major civs, and some minor civs stand alone outside of any mcg. There can be overlap, for instance maybe you can't have both Germany and Prussia. Maybe Karelia will be part of the Slavic mcg one game and the Nordic one the next.

    *The player can create his or her own major or minor civs, micro or macro culture groups, and internal provinces. The player can reassign relationships between civs, groups.
    -Brent

    1.2.2 Different ways to trigger a Civil War

    *For example, say you are a Republic and you start a war with someone, fine, but after 50 turns you're still at war, the people nearest that civ dislike being at war with them and revolt en masse.

    Similarly, Crazy Communist man keeps sacrificing his citizens to the Gods of production, resulting in a lower class uprising and a very interesting split.

    These could even be turned into a "revolutionary" game, where factors such as being across an ocean too early could lead to a revolution by colonists who are sick of getting ruled by a King on another land thousands of miles away.

    Revolutions and Civil wars could be turned on and off at the player's discretion.
    -Metaliturtle
    Tie happiness to it, and then make the happiness model more complex. As it is now, only gross negligence will lead to a city rioting for more than a single turn (if that), but in reality large populations are much harder to control

    Enough unhappiness (which can be seen specifically in game terms as dislike for the controlling regime) and you run the risk of parts of the empire fragmenting off.

    Making civil wars like this would only work if happiness is harder to control (ie, based on other factors than city size and city improvements).
    -Fosse

    1.2.3 Specific Civ-Splits (Culture Groups)

    *Civs that can split apart include Spain, England, France, Celts, Romans, Arabs, Germany, Scandinavia.
    Spain can split into Portugal, Mexico, Peru, Argentina, etc.
    England can split into America, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa.
    Celts can split into Brittany, Ireland, Wales, Cornwall, Scotland.
    Rome can split into Spain, Italy, France, Romania.
    Arabs can split into Egypt, Iraq.
    Scandinavia can split into Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Faroes, Jutes, Vinland.
    USSR can split into Ukraine, Belarus, Siberia, Kamchatka.
    America can split into Texas, California, Union, Confederacy.
    Germany can split into Austria, Switzerland, Bavaria, Saxony, Luxembourg, Liechtenstein, West Germany, East Germany.
    -Brent

    Minor civs associated with America: Confederacy, Yankees, Texans, California, Alaska, Canada (maybe), Deseret (fits as well as CA and TX I think).

    Minor civs associated with Germany: Bavaria, Saxony, Austria, Switzerland, Luxembourg, Liechtenstean. Maybe instead of Switzerland: Zurich, Berne, Thurgau, etc.

    Minor civs associated with Scandinavia: Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Iceland, Finland, Faroes, Jutes, Karelians, Gotland, Sami

    You could choose between a Pacific Islands microculture group or a Polynesian major civ. the minor civs would be Aborigines, Maori, Fiji, Tahiti, Hawaii, Tonga, Samoa.
    -Brent

    Aztecs-Teotihuacans-Olmec
    Inca-Tiahuacanos-Moche
    English-Americans-Canadians
    Russians-Polish-Mongols
    Greeks-Romans-Minoans
    Egyptians-Assyrians-Babylonians
    French-German-Spanish
    Sioux-Iroqoius-Navaho
    Chinese-Japanese-Korean
    Indians-Siamese-Khmer
    -The List for Civ III

    1.3.0 Combo-Civs

    *Close allies should be able to join each others civilization if the civs are much alike (examples: the member-nations of the USSR, or the EU)
    -DarkCloud

    1.4.0 Civ-Creation

    *If we could customize our own civs, then we wouldn't need more civs. The player should be able to add traits, give civs abilities, etc. from the New Game setup screen... Not just from the editor.
    -Rasputin

    *You should be able to choose attributes, your cultural group (asian, european, arab, mediteranian, african, american), your Unique Units (im hoping there are at least one more UU per civ, if not a UU for each civ for each age), etc.
    And all this should be possible because this game is about building a civilization form the ground up, right?
    -Kramerman

    *Why don't we do it RPG style ? Give us a hell load of points to start with, distribute them over various characteristics (like: agricultural: 1000, militaristic: 2000, scientific: 1500, environment-conscious, religious etc....) which will give you certain advantages and you can improve these characteristics throughout the game (like if you build lots of farms you get more experience in agriculture; if you conquered two continents in less than half a century, you get to a militaristic level when all new units are produced with a +5 morale; etc.). And that will be your own civilization.

    And if you're like me and can't make up your mind as how to distribute the damn points, you could choose a 'real world' civ with an all-made-up-just-for-you distribution exactly the way it's done in Empire Earth.
    -Kirastos

    1.5.0 Renaming Civs

    **Give civilizations the option to rename themselves when they advance to a new era. Each civ can have suggested names to switch to for each era. For example:

    Babylon -> Iraq
    Persia -> Iran
    Gaul -> Franks -> France
    -ixnay

    1.6.0 Voluntarily Splitting Civs

    *I'd like to have the option to create civs out of your own civ. So if your nation becomes too rowdy, you can seperate a part of civ and rebuild your nation.
    If your Civ is on the verge of revolting against you, you can just cut off the rowdy cities so you can work on making the ones you have better.

    -Frozzy

    1.7.0 Hardcoded Numbers of Civs

    *There shouldn't be a hardcoded max number of civs - just say "over this number, we don't support whatever happens".
    -skywalker

    1.8.0 Minor Civs/New Tribes

    *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.
    -Fosse

    *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: Cash 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.
    -Fosse

    *I want minor civs to behave normally regarding building improvements and units, technology, culture, and diplomacy. I favor the disadvantage of no Traits, subordinate characters, or unique units. Minor civs could share culturegroupspecific units with their entire culturegroup. There would be no civspecific graphics. If major civs have more than one available ruler, minors have one or none if none makes sense.
    -Brent

    *New tribes should probably appear periodically
    -Mercator

    *The more I think of it, the more "minor civs" seem to be a good idea. Imagine having them start with two settlers, but without the possibility to build new ones. They still could conquer foreign ones however. Thus most of them would die over time, but in some occasions they might develop into good foes.

    *Those minor civs, as I said, would require little work, as there'd be no UUs and no need for time-robbing leader graphics.
    -Wernazuma III

    *In reality, many civs arose in the passage of time- therefore, should not some Minor civs start later than the major ones with already established cities- or in breaking off from an already-existing empire and establishing their own suzeraniety much like the Barbarian takeovers in Civ I,II?
    -polypheus/DarkCloud

    *I do like the idea of minor civs. These would be 1 city civilizations randomly scattered about the map, having 1 or 2 military units. I think you should be able to convince them you join you via diplomacy, though conquest could always happen too.
    -Drachasor

    *Let the normal gameplay decide what is a major and what is a minor civ. A tribe is stuck on a small island? -- Likely to become a "minor civ". I don't like the designation of a civ being "minor" because of the earth history.
    -Shogun Gunner

    *Minor Civs are good an all, but let's get our priorities in order here- the AI programming is going to have to be much better before the number of civs is increased significantly.
    -Shogun Gunner

    *If a major civilization 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).
    -Drachasor

    *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.
    -The diplomat

    *Perhaps minor civs could be only created by Barbarians who capture cities of other nations? In this way barbarians could become minor civs and minor civs could become major civs (if they expand to 3+ cities.)
    -MORON

    *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.
    -MORON

    1.9.0 Nomadic Civs (A type of Minor Civ)

    1. Nomadic settlers are like mobile villages
    I think a nomadic civilization should use its settlers in a very similar fashion than a sedentary Civ uses its cities. A settler would have a name (just like a small tribe), it would gather shields, food, gold and knowledge just like a town. It could produce units just like a town.
    This way, nomadic Civilizations could discover techs, build military units, constitute a treasury etc even before they settle down.

    2. Settlers do not have all the attributes of a town
    OTOH, to compensate for the added bonus of mobility, nomadic settlers are limited, in that they can not build city improvements, their civ can not build roads or other tile improvements, and the population of a settler unit is capped.

    OTOH, the first Settler should be the "palace", so that corruption can be calculated in a nomadic empire spanning on several settlers (One can also imagine that an early King unit can be used to build a palace in the city he pleases, and acts as the center of the empire until then).

    Additionally, to prevent nomadic settlers from living in hostile terrain, they should not get the "flat" production a city enjoys in the city-tile. In Civ3, a newly found city will always enjoy at least 2 food, one shield, once commerce from its city-tile; a settler should only get the food / shields / commerce the tile normally produces. As such, if the settler stands on a mountain, the "city tile" doesn't produce any food.

    3. Settlers produce another settler automatically once the population gap is reached.
    This is the main reason why a Civ would want to remain nomadic despite the advantages of sedentary cities.
    When the population cap is hit, the nomadic settler loses one-two citizens, and it spawns a new settler without having to pay the shield costs. The new settler will have to find grazelands somewhere else (either nearby or far away, just not on the same tile, as it would already be in use by its mother unit).

    This gives nomadic Civs a great boost in territorial expansion at the beginning over their sedentarian counterparts, but at the cost of population growth, infrastructure, culture, and improvements.

    4. Settlers and culture / borders
    Settlers can not produce culture. And their borders can only span on the minimal radius. If a nomadic settler enters another Civ's territory, the offended Civ may go to war. Same if another Civ founds a city / pushes its nomadic settler in the nomad's territory.
    Since nomadic Civs cannot produce culture, and if culture continues to become the driving force behind borders in Civ4, these civs will quickly be more and more pushed back by expanding sedentary cultures. Nomadic civs end up unable to defend their holdings, or only through war.

    5. The shift to sedentarianism
    The main idea is that all Civs start as "nomadic", and they all become sedentarian when they choose.

    I think a Civ should become sedentarian when it founds its first city. The specific attributes of nomadic settlers disappear from then on, and will never come back. However, the remaining settlers act normally where they stand: they are not forced to settle on the spot, nor are they destroyed. They just move to find a good spot (if they hadn't found one already) just like they always moved in Civ series.

    Also, it may be useful to restrict the ability to settle all at once. It may be a good idea to force the player to wait one turn before the foundation of each new city. This is a balance issue that has more to do with playtesting.

    Lastly, it may be a good idea to require a tech (such as Alphabet or Masonry) before the settlers become able to found a city. This is also a question of playtesting.
    -Spiffor

    *Nomadic settlers produce higher food/shields in certain squares(tundra, steppe, etc) than cities but need to move around constantly so not to deplete renewable resources(like how nomads stayed in different places in each season). ideally you want nomads lasting a long time(just like in real life) in steppe areas while cities would spring up in fertile areas. so on the map of earth civs would do best to go straight to sedentary cities in areas like the indus valley while others areas would stay nomad cities longer(iran, germany, etc?), and places like siberia would have nomads for a very long time. nomads should definately be a more powerful civ type in certain environments especially if they are located next to a sedentary civ they can raid
    -pg

    *Each nomadic settler acts as a cityworker and you can stack them for increased production. that would make it easier since a settler with 3 population points would be confusing. Instead, just have 3 settlers walking together, producing together and feeding eachother. Then you just cap the number of nomadic settlers you can have in one square. If there are 4 nomadic settlers in an area and they reach the max food no new settler is made until the group splits. nomads wont grow over a certain point.
    -LzPrst

    *I assume nomads wouldnt need to support their units since they are hunter/gatherers...

    this would be good for the warmongers as they could stay nomadic in nomansland a long time and then suddenly explode and conquer enemy cities with their vast, but horse-smelling troops
    -LzPrst

    *If nomads conquer a city and do not raze it to the ground- then they immediately become sedentary and lose nomadic bonuses, but gain bonuses that regular civilizations posess.
    -DarkCloud

    1.10.0 Civ Break-Offs

    *When you start a new game of Civilization IV; only a few large, major civs are available to start with, such as Chinese, Semites, and Indoeuropeans.

    To keep from having the same exact group of civs for the whole game, there would be breakoffs. Indoeuropeans can split into Romans, Celts, Germans, Slavs, Indians, etc.
    -Brent

    1.11.0 Proto-Civs (Relates to Minor Civs)

    *The Civilizations should start as tribes, and aren't really considered civs before they complete their palace. This would allow the game to start earlier.
    Before the palace is built, the tribes won't create any culture, though they would be able to create warriors, archers, and such. However, they will also have no scientific advancement since they are little more than nomadic herdsmen who have finally settled down and are just starting to adjust to the rigors of civilization and farming.

    Once palaces are built, the civilizations will overtake the near tribes rapidly, with the villages and encampments turning into small cities
    -Azazel

    1.12.0 Evolving Civilizations

    In Civilization, civilizations are in one block. I mean you pick the French, you pick the French, and you will continue all the way with them. You may change your governement, your strategies but never your nationality and what you are in substance. You will always have the same center, the same identity, the same power.

    I think that a civilization evolves. Even if it is represented in Civilization, because it can't be avoided, I think it is the most interesting and fascinating feature of a civilization that a civilization can become another civilization. Not only, it is the most interesting feature in term of gameplay in Civilization: to see your civilization change and grow.

    This is why i would want to see a system in Civilization 4 that allows an evolution of a civilization culture, power, identity. The better would be an evolution in relation with the other civilizations. It could be done through culture, appartenance feeling, revolutions, events, trade, spreading...

    The other things i would want to see for a good civilization evolving is technology diversity, with large tech trees, very specific, inventive and optional technologies.

    Some other things already influences this civilization evolving and specificities, like military leaders that give a civilization a good military past and present.

    For sure, a Civilization game with such specifities would be a revolution: civilizations would be highly customizable and would be very realistic and generally, i think, very "civilizationish".
    -Naokaukodem

    *I also agree with Peter that the context in which your civ evolves should make a difference, and that civ bonuses should come more out of your civ's history than your starting pick.
    -Mark_Everson

    *I would assume all tribes start from the same point. No advantages, no tendencies, etc. A civ near the ocean or with a lot of cities on the coast would start to get advantages in reduced costs in building ship related units, improvements. Perhaps after building your third harbor, the cost starts to come down.

    To take that another step, if you conqured a number of cities from a neighboring nation, the traits of the foreign nationals in your new cities would have a different character. Over time, this would influence your nation's values, traits, etc.
    -Shogun Gunner

    2.0.0 Rulers

    2.1.0 Choosing Rulers

    *Every civ could have two different rulers available for being chosen as the civ's leader.
    (Example: Americans - George Washington and Woodrow Wilson.)
    -Rasbelin

    *There should be (Like Civ II) both a Male and a Female Leader for each nation
    -POTUS

    2.2.0 Ruler Traits

    *Each ruler should have his or her own traits which affect the way they play the game.
    -Brent

    *Each ruler's traits should effect a civilization's traits. For example:
    Stalin could have an Authoritarian trait to add to Russia's hypothetical Merchant/Green traits.
    -DarkCloud

    *Basically, what I was thinking was that the leaders could work much like they work in Europa Universalis...

    Each Civ would have an infinite number of leaders that possess certain traits such as:

    Admistration (1-5 Star) [Increases Tax Efficiency, Cheapness of Buildings, Reduces Corruption]
    Military (1-5 Star) [Increases Cheapness of Units, Reduces Penalty for War and Distance from Home city]

    Diplomacy (1-5 Star) [-25%,-10%,0%,+10%,+25% Relations with all computer civs; Decreases the cost for purchasing merc units from other civs, Allows you to transgress borders for an extra 2-3 turns]

    Some of the leaders can be historical, but perhaps there are not enough famous generals/politicans for every time period in every nation, therefore a random name generator will be necessary for the game.

    I believe that this will add a lot to Civ-strategy.

    However in contrast to the List's previous suggestion, I would like to posit forth that these 'Leaders' should not be able to "run the civilization" for the player since we don't want to take too much power out of the player's hands by letting the AI take over management.
    -DarkCloud

    2.3.0 Changing Rulers

    *Like in the game Europa Universalis, the Leaders for each civilization should change after x amount of years (to be randomly determined).

    *The names for these rulers could be randomly generated.

    *Each ruler would have traits like civilisations do in Civ III. For example: one ruler could be conservative and pressing (ala Margaret Thatcher), or changing and friendly (ala Mikhail Gorbachev), or militaristic and fascist (ala Adolf Hitler).
    -Fozzy, DarkCloud

    2.4.0 Ruler Graphic Design

    *If animated leaders are used, add support for static leaderheads in picture format, as opposed to the still-flcs necessary to make static leaderheads in civ3.

    2.5.0 Different Civ Rulers for Different Governments

    *I want some different rulers available to represent some different governments.
    -Brent

    2.6.0 List of Rulers

    America: Washington, Lincoln, Kennedy

    England: Coel, Brutus, Henry I, Mary, Victoria

    France: Charlemagne, Hugh Capet, Napoleon, Joan of Arc

    Israel: Moses, Joshua, Saul, David, Solomon, Zedekiah, Ben-Gurian, Golda Meir

    Egypt: Seti, Rameses, Tutankhamen, Cleopatra

    Polynesia: Kamehameha, Hawaii-Loa, Queen Lilliolikauna

    Rome: Romulus, Julius Caesar, Caesar Augustus, Vespasian, Christantine

    (Ed: Although personally, I really do not like the idea of there being non-historical personages leading nations- such as Romulus who can be considered as never leading a 'nation' per se and perhaps even being entirely fictional, like Moses or Aeneas [Also reputed to have founded Rome.])
    -Brent

    2.7.0 A Way to Maximize Use of Rulers/Assigning Culture Group Rulers

    *This could particularly be useful when an obscure Civ has no usable historical ruler of its own. Such a Civ could either use a historical ruler of a related Civ, or a ficticious person assigned to the Culture Group.

    *Be able to use the same ruler for more than one available Civ. Possibly each culture group would have a pool of rulers that you choose from separately from your civ. Some of these rulers could be actual rulers from history, some could be other famous members of that culture group from history, and some could be ficticious. If you really want to any ruler could rule any civ. The rulers could have their own traits, completely separate from the civ traits or the same sorts of traits and you could choose which civ and ruler you want by their Traits. The ficticious rulers could be designed to cover Traits that you couldn't reasonably assign to one of the historical persons for that culture group. You could have more limited options for ruler/ civ combinations. Benito Juarez could be available only for the Zapotecs or the Mexicans. Margaret for Norway, Sweden, or Denmark. Charlemagne for Rome, France, or Germany.
    -Brent

    Civilizations page 2

      Posting comments is disabled.

    Article Tags

    Collapse

    Latest Articles

    Collapse

    • Civ 4 the List: List of Threadmasters
      by DarkCloud

      The List for Civ IV was a project that could not have been accomplished without the hard work and dedication of the many Threadmasters and ideas-finders on the forums. While idea-suggestors are likewise important, I have compiled here a list of the volunteers who went above and beyond the call of duty to take on the task of threadmastering a thread for the List.

      And here they are, alphabetically:

      Asmodean- Former Administrator of the List
      Azazel- Government and Social Engineering
      DarkCloud- Administrator; Civilizations, General, Scenario/Map Editor; List Formatter
      Fosse- The Polls
      Ixnay- Space
      Lajzar- Units
      MattH- Cheats
      Nikolai- AI, Resources, Terrain
      Octavian X- Wonders
      Platypus Rex- Regional and City Menus
      TechWins- Diplomacy
      Trifna- Movement/Supply, User Friendliness

      August 31, 2012, 18:13
    • Civ 4 the List: Closing Remarks
      by DarkCloud

      And so now the list has drawn to a close. Thousands of ideas have been culled from the Civ III community at Apolyton. Hopefully the list that we propose here has been easy enough to search through and hopefully it will lead to a great parnership between the players and the corporation.

      Good luck with your struggles and please, keep civving!

      -DarkCloud
      List Administrator

      PS: Here's a link to the Civ III-Ideas List compiled by Apolyton Fans on July 14, 1999 - Civ III List in case you wish to compare it to the current creation

      August 31, 2012, 18:05
    • Civ 4 the List: The Polls
      by Fosse

      Introduction

      Realizing that some polls about hot topics have already left the top page, and that newcomers to the discussion seldom dig through the back pages in order to find out what's been discussed before, I've decided to compile a list of the Civ 4 List related polls.

      I've abandoned keeping a running talley of votes, as it's a great deal of work that is immediatley outdated, and if you really were interested in the results you would visit the poll and read the comments.

      Now... the polls:

      Stacked vs. Single Unit Combat: The Battle Continues
      Should units be stacked into "armies" that fight and operate as a single unit, or does moving them one at a time provide a boost to strategic considerations?

      Resources: How to Handle
      Is a system with stores and limits on resources a better simulation and more fun, or tedious micromangement?

      From Civ 3 to Civ 4
      More of the same, or a bold new direction for Civ 4?

      Squares, Hexes, Octagons...
      Pick your poison, the traditional Civ Map, traditional War Games map, or something else entirely.

      Eras in Civ 4?
      Is the new era system a great addition, or a stifling hindrance?

      Espionage & Assymetrical Warfare
      Does Bond get his own unit?

      To 2000 AD or Beyond?
      Civ, From the Ancients to the Stars; or Civ, The Whole of Human History.

      {The List} United Nations
      A resolution for change... do you Veto?

      {The List} What Should Happen to Civ Traits?
      Should Civ 4 have homogenous Civs or even more differences?

      Terrain Improvements
      "Give me Workers, or Give me Death" vs "Micromagement Gives me Death."

      Nomads and Chiefdoms
      Should Civ 4 let us wander the great wide open?

      Civ 4 ideas - straights and canals
      Do you want straigts? Or canals?

      Civ 4 idea: Armies instead of units
      Once again, armies or single units?

      Health in Civ 4?
      Should we have sick Civs?

      Emphasis on Age
      Which historical era, if any, should get a boost in Civ 4?

      Civ 4 resistance
      Do you want partisans from Civ 2? Resistors from Civ 3? Or something new for Civ 4?

      Fire and Movement
      How should firepower and movement rates affect combat in Civ 4?

      Stacking Limits Y/N
      Assuming we have stacks, what sorts of stack limits should there be?

      Improved Poll: When should Civilization IV end?
      What is a good time for the game to end?

      Future Techs in Civ 4
      Which future era techs would you like in Civ 4?

      What ARE wonders, anyway?
      Well? What are they?

      Pollution Managers:
      Would you like Pollution Managment added to city screen?

      Tech Transmission


      Here is some food for thought from Civfanatics.

      -Respectfully Compiled by Fosse

      ...
      August 31, 2012, 18:03
    • Civ 4 the List: Wonders
      by Fosse
      Introduction The concept of the great Wonders of the World in Civ is as old as the series itself. For years, civvers around the world have built Pyramids, Great Libraries, Magellanic Voyages, and trips to the Moon. And, as Civ has gone from I to II to III, wonders have been added, removed, or have changed in some way. With Civ3 came the idea of Small Wonders that each nation had the oppertunity to build individually, further widening the effect of these great projects. As Civ4 looms over the horizon, how will the concept of Wonders of the World evolve further? Summary As you can see, I'm still coming up with ideas already proposed and boiling them down into a list. The links I have found to all threads in this forum pertaining to wonders has been included. If you have some more links, or brand new ideas, please feel free to post them in this thread. Related Threads http://apolyton.net/showthread.php?threadid=75460 http://apolyton.net/showthread.php?threadid=106609 http://apolyton.net/showthread.php?threadid=107349 http://apolyton.net/showthread.php?threadid=117222 http://apolyton.net/showthread.php?threadid=107895 http://apolyton.net/showthread.php?threadid=111317 http://apolyton.net/showthread.php?threadid=114759 http://apolyton.net/showthread.php?threadid=115569 http://apolyton.net/showthread.php?threadid=117740 http://apolyton.net/showthread.php?threadid=117222 Table of Contents New Wonder Ideas Changes to Existing Wonders New Wonder Concepts Conclusion The Ideas I. New Wonder Ideas This section goes on the idea that the concept of the ‘wonder’ in Civ will not change from Civ3 to Civ4, that players will still accumulate production in a race with other civs in their attempt to build a wonder. Listed at those specific ideas for a brand new wonder. Statue of Liberty No so much a new wonder, but bringing back a great one from Civ2. A civ with this wonder, in Civ2, could switch to any government type, irregardless of possession of the prerequisite tech, with no anarchy time. In Civ2, it was rendered mostly useless by the fact that one could switch governments without penalty every four turns (the classic Odeo years).Arrian Banaue Rice Terraces >Ancient - allows irrigation on hills (weak, needs more benefit, maybe cut irrigation time or allow hills/forests/mountains to act as irrigated square for the purposes of irrigating next to it).Solomwi Channel Tunnel Modern/Late Industrial - allows ground units to move across single tile straits without ships.Solomwi Machu Picchu Late Ancient - allows settlement on mountains.Solomwi Attitude/Reputation Wonders Bring back some of the old ones from Civ2 that could modify relations with neighbors. (Eiffel, Marco Polo, etc.)Solomi Apian Way (Small Wonder) Originally Roman Empire, huge boon to trade (25-50% for every city connected by it) and unit movement along its length (4 tiles instead of three like other roads). For those who love micromanaging, the Wonder could cost a city less to "produce," but workers would return to existing roads for an additional one or two turns per tile, resulting in a straighter road graphic or a different color. Building the AW from scratch would take 25% longer than normal roads. The benefit would be only on city-to-city connecting roads, not on every city radius tile, but it would also apply to roads to Resources and to your civ's borders in anticipation of expansion by settlements or conquest. The benefit would continue until replaced by Railroads (not the Tech but actual construction). For those who despise micromanaging, give the option to pay more and have the work magically appear when the Wonder is produced. The entire cost would then be based upon X base plus y for so many tiles to link all cities with one road at the time of the Wonder's completion, meaning if you add more cities while in production, the cost continues to go up - but again, you dodge the microM. The Round Table (Great Wonder) A la King Arthur, this would make representative forms of government faster to discover and to implement with shorter or nonexistent anarchy. Lewis & Clark (SW) This would double Movement Points of all units exploring black-out tiles, except when barbarians have been uncovered, so you'd have to deal with them normally. Speed wouldn't be affected by another civ's units. Pony Express (SW) Faster communication improves Science and Culture and would reduce corruption in far away cities on the same continent. It would also speed up building the first Road between each city. Any additional city tiles worked for roads would still take the normal time. International Red Cross (GW) This would be a major diplomatic boost, as well as better treatment for captured units and faster healing for battle-wounded units. Recover...
      August 31, 2012, 17:58
    • Civ 4 the List: User Friendliness/ The Manual / Help Files
      by Trifna
      Introduction User Friendliness- what makes the game easy to play. The Manual- the guides to Civ I and II provided historical information and pull-out charts that gave the game character- will Civ IV have such things? Or will the manual merely be a cheap on-line PDF? Help Files- how easily can the owners of the game find their way around it once accessing the game itself? Summary While this wasnt the most glamours of sections, it is in some ways the most important because without easy accessibility, Civilization would be both unfun and impossible to play. Many ideas which could fall in this area were included in other sections, thus its sparseness can be explained by the universality in where these help information can be put in. Table of Contents The Ideas Conclusion The Ideas Historical Garbage: Forget the historical stuff about units. Most people never read it and it doesn't enhance gameplay.-Kuciwalker (It should be noted, however that a significant group of civvers actually appreciates these historical things and the fact that they are in the game makes it more educational and acceptable to teachers and parents trying to teach their children through learning. It also makes the game more 'intellectual' and provides a good reference.)-DarkCloud Generating Civlopedia Entries IN THE EDITOR:: Make it easy to generate Civpedia entries IN THE EDITOR.-Kuciwalker A "?" to click on and point at elements: I propose that somewhere at the top of the screen there would be a litte interrogation mark to click on. If you click on it, there will be a bunch of very visible interrogation marks each place on the present screen you can get a little text explaining how it works, what it is and everything that's nice to know. This would help many, without even bringing the need of a complete tutorial (though a tutorial can always be nice, and it could use the information put with this interrogation marks system).-Trifna "Hovered on" information: I also think that there should be, in the options tablet, a checkbox that when clicked, will cause the mouse button (when it's hovering over an object) to describe the object in a short description-DarkCloud Improved file save/retrieve: Would it be too much to ask to slightly improve the file save and file retrieve dialog boxes? I feel like I'm back in Windows 3.x with the spartan [...] file operation box. What I would like to see is a page ripped from Microsoft's book on this. First, make the box a little bit bigger. If I'm doing some file operation, go ahead and cover most of the screen. It's not like I'm playing the game while opening/closing a game. Second, I need to see some properties information displayed regarding my file saves. A small thumbnail of my map would be nice. Also, some information like: When was the file created (game started) Date last saved How many civs active Current scores/perhaps a histograph? Whether the game is SP, MP or PBEM Speaking of PBEM. Could a seperate interface be developed for keeping MP and PBEM games organized? I create seperate folders, but I think with minimal effort, a little nicer front end could be developed to make it easy to store, organize and launch games.One last thing...the manual makes it a point to say that it doesn't store email addresses. This is a pretty simple thing that would help the player tremendously.-Shogun Gunner Using the standard Windows open-file box: Why not use the standard Windows open-file box, with an extra part to display some info about the actual savegame you have selected?-Kuciwalker Mini-map, and opening a game in one click: A mini-map thumbnail is essential.I'd also like a way to open games with one click from the main menu.-MattH For a printed manual: The manual should be printed, not digital! I find it much nicer to be able to paw through actual paper.-MattH ...Digital is transient... paper is for all time-DarkCloud Being able to pause at any time: Be able to pause the game in the middle of anything it's doing to look at settings, etc. When it's cycling through automated or AI units. Be able to change orders in the middle. Be able to more easily observe what the AI is doing before it's finished.-Brent Conclusion This section is pretty explanatory and compact, but basically people want ways to easily determine what different sorts of data is on the map and to easily plunge into a game of civ....
      August 31, 2012, 17:55
    • Civ 4 the List: Units
      by lajzar
      Introduction This is meant as a discussion of two principal aspects of the game: what units should appear in the game, and the effects of the various unit attribute flags. Of secondary importance is finding a way to integrate unit statistics with whatever combat method is chosen; it is generally agreed that balancing stats will depend a lot on how combat (stacked vs 1:1 vs other) is implemented. Summary One recurring theme across the various lists for each generation of civ was for a unit workshop, similar to smac. I believe this would be bad for civ. While it could reflect the historical range of units if constrained with a uitably detailed complex ruleset, this rulset would be unreasonably complex for a game, forcing an extra level of management. In addition, it would make it extremely hard to mod the graphics, and all but impossible to create mods with fantasy units. Most people agree that civ3 had far too few units in the game. The big jumps in the capabilities at each critical tech gave an overwhelming advantage to teh tech leader, as well as giving a somewhat disjointed view of history. With assymetric units, there is clearly a strong desire for these functions to be implemented. The main debate is on whether or not units are the best means of implementing these functions. This a decision that should be made on a group by group basis. There is very little desire for religious units or lawyers, but worker functions are evenly split on whether units are the best method to put them in the game. Related Threads Civ4 Idea: Armies instead of Units Stacked vs. Single Unit Combat - The Battle Continues Some sort of unit design allowed? Civ4 Units Table of Contents 2.0 Miscellaneous Thoughts 5.0 Units Conclusion The Ideas Organized by: Lajzar...
      August 31, 2012, 17:52
    Working...
    X