New poll: Number of civs

[MarkG]

Vote! http://apolyton.net/civ3/

[SnowFire]

This is a really bad poll. It is simply far too vauge about how the civ set up will be. For instance, I'd like to see anywhere from 5 to 32 civs at a time in the game, BUT I'd like to have, say, 8 major civs and 24 minor civs. Saying "32 civs" implies something like CTP, which was horribly unrealistic in that regard in having all the civs be the equivalent of major civs (big play-balance problem because since the AI can't ally to "stop the leader," conquer 2 civs and you are now 3 times as powerful (roughly) as any other civ, making the rest of the game meaningless). Furthermore, I'd like for it to be customizable, as in I might want simply 5-8 major civs one game for more of a "Civ classic" feel, or maybe 8 majors and only 8 minors another game. This poll can't show that at all.

My suggested poll responses for this would be something more like
A. 3-7 with 21 total, a la CivII
B. 8 with 32 total, a la C:CTP
C. up to 32 players at once, as CTP was supposed to have
D. A major/minor civ system with up to 8 major civs and any number of minor civs, 0-24.
E. Your suggestion here

Or maybe just a simple "Major/minor civs: A good idea?" question, who knows. Ah well. Just my 2 cents.

[Atahualpa]

explain on major/minor civs! I think if a civ is small, it is automatically minor, isnt it? Currently, I dont like the major/minor civ idea, but if you could explain it to me...

16 civs is a must! 32 is too much I think, but at least 16, even if it is not supported!

Ata

[SnowFire]

Um, no, that's now how it works. Read some older posts in the suggestions forum. The really short version is, 32 cookie-cutter Greco-Roman civilizations is not only unhistorical, it works against play balance. The simple fact is, not every civ expanded like crazy and tried to take over as much of the world as possible. And those civs ended up getting ruthlessly imperialized from the 15th century onward. Even if a civ becomes weak, it still has the same AI as a great power, causing it to make ridiculous demands and reducing options like missionaryism, imperialism, creating puppet states, etc. I don't want to have to personally rule a huge empire; I want to have lots of annoyed ethnic groups if I do (like the Soviet Union did). Minor civs and ethnic nationalism can contribitue a lot to this. Plus, what about those vast empty spaces on the map? They can be populated by minor civs who spread technology around the world that way.

Minor civs would have a different AI that would call for some initial growth at first, and then very slow growth afterward. It would develop science mostly by trade and luck. It would have its own special AI. And there would be lots of things to do to it (let's say Belgium)- maybe sign a treaty guarenteeing its safety, like England did, saying that "A declaration of war on Belgium is a declaration of war on me." And then trade with it and get lots of good technology from it.

Of course, if a major civ is weakened enough (like Poland from 1600 onward), then it may become a minor civ and an especially strong minor civ may become a major civ (like the Germans or the Russians, who profitted at Poland and others expense).

[MarkG]

Snowfire, the civ setup in all civ games is straight: there are no major and minor civs. So, I followed that setup in the choices...

Your proposal is not a variation of the topic but is actually a totally different one.

[Maniac]

I agree with Snowfire. I voted wrong (32) because I assumed minor civs were taken in account and I think others did the same. Without minor civs I would still vote for only 8.

[Stuff2]

Why don't smart up the AI instead.
Make them aware of how much power they really have compared to other nation's.
If they are strong they will behave differently than if they are weak.

Also. Make the computerplayers change leaders during the game with differen't personalities. Then your best ally can, with a switch of leader suddenly start to hate u.

[Maniac]

Stuff2, about changing personalities.
Don't drive it too far. I wouldn't like it if my ally suddenly hated me after two turns (2 x 25 = 50 = length of leadership).

[Stuff2]

I didn't mean that your ally always starts to hate u as soon as they change leader. It's just a possibility especially if the leader-change is a result of a revolution.
The most common is that if there is no revolution the next leader will be pretty much the same as the old one.

And I also think that there should be no turn's that go longer than 10 years.

[Maniac]

Ok, but then there should also be a possibility that the attitude of a civ towards you dramatically increases.
Eg the present relations between France and England would be impossible in Civ2 since they had war for +- 1000 years in game terms.

And yes, I think also that the # years in a turn should decrease. I always found it pity that the most interesting ages passed so quickly.

[Stuff2]

yep...U've got my point! ;-)

[Atahualpa]

Thanks Snowfire, but I still dont like that idea. What if the player himself becomes a minor civ? And why the heck should a minor civ have better technology than a major civ?

With 8 civs there is not so much interaction and especially if the game has a very good diplomacy I vote for 16 civs at least.

Ata

[Maniac]

Atahualpa, where did Snowfire say that minor civs would get better tech?

[don Don]

With Civ and SMAC you usually wind up with 2-4 civs that go nowhere (only build a few cities). I think what happens is they loose a couple of Settlers/Colonies to barbarians/worms and then just don't build any more. So you wind up with minor civs anyway. In SMAC they can usually be dominated or bullied into becoming "allies" in a one-sided way.

I suspect with numerous civs you would wind up with numerous de facto minor civs.
[This message has been edited by don Don (edited September 24, 1999).]

[Yakopepper]

I think having major and minor civs is a bad idea. Basically because if you start with say like 20, Civs will be close to each other and some will dominate the immediate area and therefore cause 2 or 3 other civs to either be eliminated or
became stale. <--like a minor civ except shouldnt have bonuses or anything.
And I also think there should be revolutions and civil wars to cause possibly a relatively large civ to split or lose part of its empire to cause once again other civs to pop up with the same tech as its original host.

No civ should get any tech bonuses basically because history will show that dominate(large, major) civs have advanced tech before the smaller ones

Ehh?

Daniel