Civilizations

[tniem]

quote: Originally posted by Biddles on 04-08-2000 11:17 PM tniem: There are a few ancient Athenian leaders who were staunch democrats(republicans?), just do a little research and you'll be surprised to find that they all weren't trying to make themselves king.

Biddles-
Quite correct. I looked back at my posts and realize what you are referring to. I said that we could get rid of ancient democracy/republic, but of course Athens and Rome both had those in that time period (at least for a little while). Any way, when I originally wrote that I was thinking that time period would be considered Classics as Greece and Rome are normally seperated from the Ancient civs in history and English classes. But that would make even more leaders and certainly would be impractical.

[Yuvo]

MKL:
Of course they would, that's the whole point.
When a civ has a leader, that leader is the one that you talk to in negotiations, etc.
So whether you make peace with that civ is based on what kind of leader that person is, either a pacifist or a warmonger.
Also, that leader decides what the civ does and how everything in the empire is managed.
If that leader is democratic, he/she might change the civ's goverment type to a democracy.
The leaders attributes will be similar to those of Civ2, except maybe a bit more detailed.
I think having changing leaders is very important for Civ3, so that civs change with time, like they have with history. Alot of major historical events have occured because of a change of leadership, and a civilizations ways of thinking.

[MidKnight Lament]

Hey, settle down, mate. The last thing I remember seeing on this forum about what leaders would actually do was this.

quote: Originally posted by Sir Shiva on 04-04-2000 09:40 PM What I originally thought was that the changing leaders would be just superficial, to add a little more realism..

You mentioned this straight afterwards, but I still thought it was pretty general stuff:

quote: These leaders influence everything within that civilization, and represent the civs views at that time.

Fair enough if you want the leaders to do something. It's not all that bad an idea. But why don't you talk about how they'll actually affect the civs they're leading?

To say...

quote: Of course they would, that's the whole point.

...when it hasn't even been discussed or agreed uopn by anyone (that I can see, at least) came across as a little aggressive and a tad presumptuous.

- MKL

[This message has been edited by MidKnight Lament (edited April 10, 2000).]

[Yuvo]

Okay, sorry, I know I sounded a bit over the top.

But like I said, I would certainly like to have leaders changing with time to make it more historically accurate, and it might also help stop the later game getting boring with the same group of leaders all the time.

How they'd affect the civs they're leading, well basically they would become that civ's AI for the time they're in power.
They choose what should be built and all the decisions a human player might make.

A bit like civ2, except alot more influential, since in civ2, the leaders personality didn't make much of a difference.

[MidKnight Lament]

I should apologise for being a little forceful myself. I'm glad we've managed not to let a disagreement (or perhaps misunderstanding) degenerate into a full-on argument. After all, I'm not on this forum to make enemies. I'm here because I want to talk to people who have the same love of the game that I do, and perhaps in a small way help shape Civ 3 to make it a better game.

Regarding the topic, I want to make it clear that I'm not against leaders. I'm just a little wary of the sort of arguments which will be created with using historical figures. I'm also still wondering what leaders will actually add from a game-play perspective.

I'll just add one more thing that perhaps needs to be considered. Tell me if I'm wrong, but at the moment I understand that emerging leaders will mirror the desires of the people. And the leader will shape the civ using the leader's attributes. Will the next leader then be much the same as the last one? What measures are going to be in place to ensure that leaders don't all become the same? What's going to stop us from going around in circles? What triggers are in place for a new leader? Should a new leader have to have significantly different attributes to the old one?

There's a few questions to be asked from a game-play perspective before we worry about choosing which leaders for which governments, and for which civs.

I hope I've made myself a little bit better understood. And I'm sorry for getting a little defensive. Shake?

- MKL

[Dr Strangelove]

I have some ideas about having changing leaders for civs. I suggested this on another thread 2 months ago primarily as a means of spicing up the diplomacy and game play. The leaders of the AI players would periodically change either spontaneously or in response to events. If the civ is doing well, and has no threats or nearby rivals it might change to a "perfectionist" leader. If a civ has been falling behind, is threatened, or has nearby rivals it might acquire an "aggressive" leader, if it is surrounded by a lot of unsettled land it might adopt an "expansionist" leader. Have I got the categories of leaders mixed up? There should be a random factor to the change, because sometimes you just get the wrong leader for the times. The frequency of change should be limited, and for each civ there should be a bias toward selecting the type of leader usually associated with that civ.

[The Mad Viking]

I think no one has mentioned the Moors yet. That should IMHO be a CIV3 civ for sure.

Teutons AND Germans???

Many of the suggestions are very good, especially, I think, Minoans, Incas, Portuguese, Dutch, Koreans, Turks, Hebrews...

I think the Sioux add a neat flavour to the game, although it sometimes seems strange to have a civ that was neolithic 200 years ago... but why not?

What about the Goths? Huns? Kurgans? Bulgars? Why do civs have to start with a settler? Most civs started as nomads, who were hunters, and learned to kill efficiently - became barbarian hordes, conquered a more peaceful agrarian civ, then settled into the good life and began getting civilized. Why not have the choice of starting as a barbarian raider?

If the Poles get a civ, then I want one for Canada too! Seriously, we should have open source civs where a user can create their own.

I like the idea of little flags to identify the civs.

I really like the idea of the AI leader and personality changing to suit the situation they find themselves in. I played the Mongols recently when they started on a small island. They were worse than pathetic! Very disappointing.

[Yuvo]

MKL,

Shake.

On your questions:

quote: Originally posted by MidKnight Lament on 04-10-2000 08:57 AM Tell me if I'm wrong, but at the moment I understand that emerging leaders will mirror the desires of the people. And the leader will shape the civ using the leader's attributes.

Well, yes, but hopefully, if the leader doesn't do what the people want, like if they didn't want to be a warring sort of civ anymore and wanted to become a peaceful one, the people might start start a civil war or revolution, or (in a democracy) elect a new one.

Like I said earlier, it could, if done right, make the politics and diplomacy very interesting.

I agree with The Mad Viking, open source civs are a must. Although I'd also like it if Firaxis could include as many as they can, so that I won't have to go to the trouble of creating my own.
Btw, the Goths, Huns and Bulgars were included in civ2 as barbarian cities, if you ever looked in city.txt.

In civ3 I'd rather not see barbarians, just civs like the Huns etc. with very aggressive leaders.

[Grier]

Most of the ideas ive read so far are great. I would love to see a different leader for each civ for each different government type.

I would also like to see a whole host of minor civs with whom you could ally and maybee even embrace into your civ by peacefull means.

I would also like to see trade increase other civs attitude toward you.

Somthing that I think is very important would be the ability to create colonys and for those colonys to become independent at a later date.

[Earthling7]

Hey, you all forgot to enter the Icelandic! Why shou we be included? Let me tell you...

1. We found Greenland.
2. We found America (after the indians )
3. We had the first elected head of state in the world.
4. We have the highest number of internet users in the world.
5. 2nd highest car ownership...

Whatever... just include us... please???

[Earthling7]

First elected female head of state... sorry

[tniem]

Earthling7,

Do you mean the highest percentage of Internet users in your population? Iceland's population is 271,033 (1998 estimate).

Also, wouldn't Icelandic be included in Vikings?

[Earthling7]

Proportionate

There are no Icelandic cities in the Viking portfolio...

BTW, I am impressed by your sources

[Yuvo]

After The Mad Viking's message, I had an idea for civ3.....

Nomads:
When you start the game, instead of settlers, you get nomads.
There are three types of nomads:Normal, Horseback, and Desert.

Normal nomads move at 1 movement point a turn,have an attack strength of 2 and defence of 1. At the end of each turn, they must be within two squares of a source of water. Otherwise they die. If they spend 5 consecutive turns adjacent to a source of water they produce another normal nomad. If they are on desert squares for the 5 turns they produce a desert nomad. And if they spend that last turn on a square containing horses, they produce horseback nomads.

Horseback nomads (these represent civs like the Mongols before Ganghis Khan) move at 3 movement points a turn, have an attack strength of 3, and a defence of 1. Apart from that, they are the same as normal nomads.

Desert nomads (these represent civs like the Aborigines, and tribes of the Sahara) have 1 movement point per turn, have an attack strength of 2, and a defence strength of 2. Unlike other nomads, they can last as long as they like away from water sources.

All nomads can build cities, but cities cannot build them, they can only build settlers.

A civ can stay nomadic for as long as they like, but since nomads have low attack and defence strenghts, it isn't worth it past the discovery of gunpowder.

Civs can also have a mixture of cities and nomads if they like.

Do you like it?

[Yuvo]

Oh, and if your civ starts on a desert square, you get a desert nomad.

And another thing, I don't think all civs should start at 4000 B.C., maybe only 5 or 6 civs should start then and other ones come up randomly later on.