{The List} Civilizations ver. II

[Fosse]

From the Civ IV - Fit for Minors? thread on these forums. Some guys over there suggested I post here.

[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!

Later discussion favors adding city improvments to the list of structures that barbs "auto-build" so to make taking their cities occasionally worthwhile (for more than land). I would like such an addition to happen rarely, and be trait influcenced. I don't want to take over a city from a religious commercial civ and find nothing but barraks and granaries!

Discussion will likely continue there, but I see that it is fit in this thread as well (and my apologies to the thread's readers, but I have yet to read the whole thing. If I'm rehashing old ground I dont' mean to).


Regards,
Fosse

[Tassadar500]

Originally posted by Max Sinister
Isn't Mizraim the Hebrew name for Old Egypt?
I still like the idea of having multiple rulers per Civ. So we could have Abraham, Moses, David, Salomon, Ben Gurion and Golda Meir for Israel.

You have to understand, Abraham and Moses had nothing to do with Israel except being religious figures. Moses never even stepped into the land.

[Brent]

Maybe this post will be more productive than some of my recent ones...

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.

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.
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.

From another thread, the first time you play Civ4, only a few large, major civs are available to start with, such as Chinese, Semites, 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. The idea for winning the game would be to have the culture group created by you and your breakoffs control the world. On your next game, either the first generation of breakoffs or all breakoffs for that last game are available to start with. The civs you identify with would tend to be created because of the civs you previously chose. Ingame, give the player a message when a minor civ breaks off, asking if you want it to become a playable civ for future games. When this happens, give the player a readout of the civ's stats to edit if desired, or stats could be filled out later in the editor.

Maybe civs only need to be unlocked ingame if you want to use their unique features.

Traits chosen for your political party become standard traits for breakoff civs. Maybe combine and balance political traits with civ traits.

Semites can split into Hebrews, Egyptians, Hyksos, Berbers, Babylonians. Hebrews split into Israelites, Arabs, Midianites, Edomites. Judah can split off from Israel. Maybe Israel splits into a separate civ for each of Jacob's wives. Maybe Rachel and Leah start as one splitoff. Leah splits into Judah, Simeon, Reuben, etc. Judah splits into Zarah, Phares, and Shelah, or Sephards and Ashkenazi. Arabs split into Libyans, Saudis, Iraqis.

There can be confederacies, such as Switzerland, and the Philipines can be treated as one too. A confederacy is a group of minor tribes that start near each other. It is assumed that they will use diplomacy to merge eventually. The Philipines would only show up on a large Far East or random map. They could also have their own scenario. The Swiss could be a cohesive civ on any map or a confederacy on a large random map. They could have their own scenario or be part of a German scenario.

Using a similar system to GalCiv, have standard traits for each civ plus the player chooses extra traits for a political party or a specific leader, and these bonus traits could be lost with a change of politics. The player can set a number of points for all civs in the game.

Macroculturegroups: Africa, Asia, America, Europe.

Africa: East, North, West, Central.

Asia: Arab, Mesopotamia, Central, Far East, Caucasus, Southeast, India, Himilayas, Palestine.

America: Eastern Woodlands, Great Plains, Southwest, California, Mesoamerica, South America

Europe: Iberia, German, Celtic, British Isles, Scandinavia, Slavic, Italic, Balkan, Alps.

Independant medium- level culture groups: Pacific, Arctic, Siberia (with overlap).

Currently I say anywhere from 8 to 64 Major civs and about 200 minors. I don't care if the civs I like have uniqueness, but I want most of them to have plenty of city names.

Basically I have a completely different idea of minor civs than Fosse. I want many civs available more than many civs in one game.

[Brent]

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.

[Shogun Gunner]

I don't intend to rain on anyone's parade here...but

I think the cIV development team should produce as many civs as can be done reasonably -- understanding the system requirements limitation, programming time dedicated to this area, etc.

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.

The more civs available, the better...assuming gameplay supports it. For example, I hate the current restriction in the F4 screen.... Also, the AI programming is going to have to be much better before the number of civs is increased significantly.

[Fosse]

I agree with Shogun Gunner about not assigning civs to be minors. I still want minor civs though to address the other issues:

1) we all want more civs
2) More civs bog down resources (CPU and player having to manage a dozen relationship)
3) Different ways of interacting with minors (as paid mercenaries, people to be conquested, etc) make for more interesting play.

[DarkCloud]

Interesting List so far DC, but according to the first post not updated for a while?

I just forgot to upload the changes

thanks for the links.

[Mr. Orange]

Dynamic Civs

In thinking about Civs for Civ 4, I attached an Excel spreadsheet "showing" what I think would be cool. Instead of a hard coded civ, like "England" with pre-defined traits, I think it would be fun if you were a blank slate and you either choose to meet your playing style, or these traits grow as you follow a tech tree or by your actions in game.

The spreadsheet is cool because it is interactive. I also wish for some form of legislative body because the chocie might be cool, but that is another topic.

But dynamic civs would be reaaaal cool. Because that is the next step (to me) fof the franchise.

http://home.ripway.com/2004-1/61738/CivIVIdea.xls

edit to get link working

[Fosse]

I like your spread sheet. How about some ideas as to how those numbers will influence the civ you play? What game mechanics will be altered by a Zealous civ as compared to an Indolent one?

Also, do you see stock Civs as having predetermined statistics, completely player assigned, or mostly predetermined with player tweaks?

Do you see this in conjunction with the current trait system, or instead of it?

[Mr. Orange]

Fosse,

Glad you liked it, I hope I can answer some of your questions.

1) Those numbers would be bonuses to specifics that I have no idea about LOL, but they would take the place of Militaristic or Religious, for example in "Extertion", the civ would have a natural phiosophy that "the satisfaction of hard work and enjoy the fruits of their labor" or they are Industrious but that would hurt socilaizing so their Relations would be "close", effecting Liberty (meta category) forming a Artisocracy. Now in terms of gameplay it might mean the Civ has a hard time controlling territory becuase new people cannot be a part of the government easily.

I would like to see the Civ as a concept, not as a type. You could actually make your "own" civilization each game, as you might pick different starting traits each time, and then throgh out the game tweak the Policy of your civ to specific circumstances.

But as a meta idea there are categoreis, people wouild have their own personal perfences, but some migh like a Authorative Plurist Plutocracy (maybe South Korea in the late 80's), others a Democratic Reginaal Aristocarcy (kind of like Wales)

You eliminate "bad government" debates that in a game might be interesting to play. And that would be great to me!

[Brent]

Maybe in the main game there would be no Civilization Uniqueness, but the editor could be designed in detail to use it. We would have the large number of civs that apparently we all want, and could provide our own uniqueness for the civs we use, or leave them without uniqueness.

To how many people is it important for the game to have real historical civs ready to play? It's important to me.

[Shogun Gunner]

Mr. Orange.

This is a fabulous concept. Having dynamic civs more fits the CIV philosophy of the player's actions influences the "form" of the civ. Having predifined traits limits those options

Somewhat in line with what Fosse mentioned, I would like to see events and actions of other civs affect the characteristics of your own civ.

A simple example: if a civ that you have a treaty with, or share a similiar ethnic background, was attacked, your own people would become more militaristic. On the other hand, long periods of peace would enforce the peaceful nature of your people. Choosing to go to war in a situation like this could cause great unhappiness.

Really a solid idea, Mr. Orange.

[Mr. Orange]

Thanks Shogun Gunner. And your example is exactly what I was trying to "show", because I am not a good verbal expaliner. While your policy as a "government" might change (in game context a historically peaceful Civ is forced to fight a World War) to adapt to the politcal landscape, your "culture" might have a hard time accepting it.

But you could make the change, giving you that flexibility. As if you start out in Midieval times as peaceful, but as resources got tight your neighbors start attacking you, overtime, you would become more open to military options because your people's attitudes change from war. Therefore making a goverment policy to support the military would be more acceptable. Giving you better combat units, prodcution or zeal to not go into unhappiness. Those effects would be particular to the game mechanics.

[DarkCloud]

Updated and finished summarizing this thread- will add the other threads info in time for the December final draft.

REMINDER TO ALL: DUE DATE AUGUST 15TH!

[Brent]

Rulers

America: Andrew Jackson

Aztecs: Motecuhzoma, Itzcoatl, Cuauhtemoc

Babylon: Nebuchadnezzar

Egypt: major suggestions: Menes, Nefertiti, Tutankhamon, Cleopatra, Saladin; minor suggestion: Piankhi

Hungary: Stephen

Inca: major suggestions: Pachacuti, Topa Inca, Huayna Capac, Atahualpa, Huascar; minor suggestion: Viracocha

India: Tamerlane

Iroquois: Hiawatha, Dekanawida, Joseph Brant

Maya: Double- Bird, Pacal, Great- Skull- Zero, Curl Nose

Mexico: Miguel Hidalgo, Benito Juarez, Santa Anna

Mongols: Genghis, Kublai, Ogotai

Polynesia: Pomare

Rome: Hadrian, Nero, Tiberius

Russia: Rurik, Peter, Ivan

Scandinavians: Margaret, Gustavus

Sioux: Crazy Horse, Sitting Bull