10 AD: New civilization born

[Nikolai]

In the last time many threads have been made to discuss starting civilizations. This thread is not about that!

My idea is: why not have, lets say 7 starting civs.(oh, dangerous suggestion)
When you start the game, and are going to pick a civ, you can take any you want, even the US. But the AI civs will be the oldest of the ones available!

After the years pass, new civs will be born. These can be newer ones, like England, the US etc.(if you didn't pick one of them) But they don't have to start exactly like in history! After all, I think this game is rewriting history!

Another thing is that a civ starting around 1800 would have a problem in being important, like the culture thing... Not that I don't like culture, I think it is a good thing!

So, folks: what do you think???

[Adm.Naismith]

Re: 10 AD: New civilization born

Originally posted by Nikolai
Another thing is that a civ starting around 1800 would have a problem in being important, like the culture thing... Not that I don't like culture, I think it is a good thing!

So, folks: what do you think???

We have trouble because we mix Civilizations and Nations concept.
As a Unified Nation (State, Country) Italy is really recent, but as a culture we got most of Roman (hence Greek), plus some influence from Spain, France, German and Austria/Hungaria.

After some (game) time, it's unrealistic a Civ start from nothing: any Settler let alone can't compete with a world already full, raising a new Civ.

We can only accept a New Civ start from a bounch of cities and unit formely of a previus (older) Civ. This concept has been often debated, as Raise and Fall of Civ and so many threads I can't count anymore

In its simplest form, I suggested to let the player the in-game feature to change Civ name any time a major event occour: you annexe another Civ, or you change Age, or you double your civ power (considering money, cities, population, etc.) in a short timespan, or your empire revolt and split in two (chose to keep the old name or change)...

You can start your Civ as Roman, then rename it as Italy, then end as United Europe, or start as France then split as Canada, England, then split as USA...

Almost endless possibility: only limit the situation where you admitted to change name, just to avoid too much mess in M.P. or with a bugged A.I. prone to change name every other turn

[Lenius]

Perhaps when your empire is in revolution e.g. change of government there could be a chance of certain cities forming their own seperate empire.

The chances of this could be based on happiness and the cultral importance of your civ.

[Nikolai]

After some (game) time, it's unrealistic a Civ start from nothing: any Settler let alone can't compete with a world already full, raising a new Civ.

I remember it is discussed in the way you say, but can't we then let the new civ start with several cities? We could let them break loose from another civ too, but there could be different ways, that all have some percent chanse to occur. For example the suggestion over...

[Grumbold]

If this was to happen ... and I'm sure there's plenty of stuff in the archives about it ... then Lenius has a good suggestion. If your culture was too weak to sustain your current empire then some of the furthest flung section(s) might revolt and form a new nation, especially when you were undergoing a period of upheaval like a change of government or distant war.

[polypheus]

In the Civil Wars forum I advocated this very thing.

IMHO, I believe that having 7 civs start from 4000BCE and develop throughout the ages is unrealistic and boring.

So I also would like to see civs being born later in the game as a result of civil wars/revolts.

If it is true that Civ3 can support 16 simultaneous Civs, then ideally you would start with, say 10 Civs. Then new Civs are born later on through revolts in various ways (hopefully better than the taking capital method).

I like Lenius' idea of it happening during a change in govt although the idea will need refinement. Perhaps limit it so that it only occurs with the biggest empires immediately after the discovery of "Nationalism".

What I'd really like to see though is if Civ3 could simulate the "Colonization the New World" scenario in a main game where I can give birth to new nations akin to USA, Mexico, etc IRL that are far flung parts of the empire.

This is how nations were born historically in our world so I would really really like to see this being simulated well. If they implemented only this one additional feature then I would be more than satisfied!

[TechWins]

How about this? If you have a city that's over size 8 and it's culture is small for it's size. When the city goes on it's third revolt it will start a new Civ. Any other cites that are in it's small cultural borders will join that new Civ if the city is under size 8, has an even smaller culture, and has had at least one revolt. Understand? Well, I happen to think this would be a slightly realistic yet still fun system.

[colossus]

BARBARIANSTART A CIV

In the early game, preferably still in BC, any barbarian captured city will turn to a new civ if a civ slot is still available. To help these upstarters, barbarians units within 5 squares will be automatically hand over to the new empire. But these 'barbarian created civ' is difficult to survive if created too late in the game, as a one-city-civ is nothing compared to a far-flung empire of 100 cities. Hence the limitation to BC era, when civ are unlikely to be too large.

I don't know whether it has been mentioned before. But it can be a viable alternative to start a civ in the middle of the game other than 'some miraculous appearance of a few cities and a new civ out of nothing and nowhere'.

[Rasputin]

rather than a barbarian civ starting would be better if when a civ war breaks out more citys went barb like in ctp