{The List} Civilizations ver. II

[Wernazuma III]

Originally posted by DarkCloud
Yes, you are still allowed to post in this thread if you like.

That is a good suggestion, but I'm not sure we have enough posters really to get some good discussions going. I'm just hoping that people drop by and levy their suggestions. Maybe if this forum section were moved to the top, then more peopel would see it and voice their opinions.

I second that. Without that little link on the top right corner, I wouldn't even have found here...

[Wernazuma III]

Originally posted by Brent
I guess all the Minor Tribes in the Middle East would be linked to the Arabs: Kurds, Midian, Edom, Berbers, etc.

Or to Babylonia, or, the Berber, to Carthage or even Spain...

[Wernazuma III]

Dark Cloud, your suggestion in 6.16.0 is very similar to mine in 1.1.0
Maybe rethink the categorization!

[DarkCloud]

Okay thank you.

This is what the fixed version will look like:

1.9.0 Minor Civs

*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

[Brent]

I didn't mention the Jews or Phoenicians because I wanted to leave it open for them to be major civs. If the Jews are a major civ, Midian and Edom could be linked to them.

[Tassadar500]

The Hebrews have to be in Civ IV

[Panag]

Originally posted by Brent
I didn't mention the Jews or Phoenicians because I wanted to leave it open for them to be major civs. If the Jews are a major civ, Midian and Edom could be linked to them.

hi ,

well since christianity and islam come forward out of judaism , should it somehow be linked , ...

have a nice day

[Panag]

Originally posted by Nuclear Master
The Hebrews have to be in Civ IV

hi ,

well a lot of people agree with you

yom tov

[DarkCloud]

well since christianity and islam come forward out of judaism , should it somehow be linked

christianity and islam aren't civilizations.

The hebrews (can) be considered a civilization- christianity and islam and judaism can't.

[Panag]

Originally posted by DarkCloud

christianity and islam aren't civilizations.

The hebrews (can) be considered a civilization- christianity and islam and judaism can't.

hi ,

thats true , but they are linked true culture and religion , ...

have a nice day

[Brent]

Each civ has one primary trait and one secondary trait. Maybe have twelve traits to choose from. When a trait is your primary trait, you have all the effects as if it were your secondary trait, plus some aspects are increased and or some new aspects are added.

For each applicable civ, include one ruler from the 1800s, one of the earliest rulers known to be historical, one legendary or mythological ruler, and if the civ did not exist in the 1800s or 1900s, one of the most recent rulers.

[Plotinus]

Originally posted by Brent
For each applicable civ, include one ruler from the 1800s, one of the earliest rulers known to be historical, one legendary or mythological ruler, and if the civ did not exist in the 1800s or 1900s, one of the most recent rulers.

Is there really much point? Suppose it were the Sumerians - would there be much difference, from our point of view, between an early ruler and a late one? Or suppose it were the Americans - who would your ancient or mythological ruler be? Part of the fun of Civilization has always been having a single ruler throughout history and I don't seem much point in complicating it by changing that. I rather like the subtle humour of having a single leader for each nation, but having them change outfits for each age, so we get Gilgamesh in a jacket and tie or Mao in a furry hat.

[lajzar]

Rather than have traits, how about have something about as involved as the SMAC faction editor?

Yep, I'm actually proposing we include something from SMAC . However, this editor would be mainly for the benefit of scenario designers, and game setup, not something that would get used in-game. Of course, the civs that get shipped with the game will be designed using the full potential of this editor.

[Brent]

You would choose one ruler, be it mythological or whatever, and that would be your ruler for the whole game.


After you build your Forbidden Palace, all new cities closer to it than to your Capital are defaulted to names from another Civ in your Culture Group if any such civ is unused. All cities, new or old, that are closer to your Forbidden Palace than to your Capital, are a separate internal province and this province has a significant chance of seceding.

[lajzar]

On the subject of Forbidden Palace, anyone else think it should be renamed? The historical Forbidden Palace was *the* centre of government, not a mere subsidiary centre.