New poll: Number of civs

[The Joker]

I don't think there should be any structural difference at all between major and minor civs. I would like a game with civs in all sizes, from the huge imperial ones with 60 cities which would propably only excist in a few centuries to the medium ones with 15-20 cities to the small ones with just 5 cities. If nationality and protectorates are included it would truly take diplomacy - even civgaming as a whole - to a new level. All this does, however, require a FAR BETTER AI. The one in Civ2 really sucked. The one in SMAC were better (it was actually able to combine it's forces into one huge attack in stead of just moving them to certain death one by one), but much is needed still. Most important is propably to make the AI know how powerful it is. I have played games where I have conquored all but 5 cities of a faction, and it still wanted an advance from me to end the war. And the civ usually doesn't give up totally before it has lost all but 1 city. This really need to be changed. After all, Germany had lost no cities at all in WW1, and still it surrendered completely. The AI should also be satisfied being a protectorate, if it could see that another civ could conquor it, or if it's nationality was simply like that of another civ. It could even ask you to become a protectorate. The civs should also act this way towards each other, or it wouldn't work. Another thing is that smaller civs should be able to allie or even unite into a confederation if they are being surpressed by one or more large civs. A horror scenario for a large civ could be the unification of all the small civs in the world!

I like the possibility to have as many civs as you would like. You could say that you wanted perhabs 10 civs at first and then 20 starting randomly as time goes. Or you could say that the number of civs starting along the way could be random, so an unhapitated island would get some civ on it if not colonized. With modern time computers it shouldn't be a problem controlling this large amount of independant AI's.

Thanks for the explanation of the Indus civ. I hadn't even heard about it before.

BTW I have read that some historians think that the Azecs would propably have ended up destroying them selves if the Spanish hadn't come. They were really obsessed with death, and sacrificed loads of people every day to the sun.

For the civs started later I don't think they should be completely useless. I think that if an advance you're researching has been discovered by a civ you have contact with it should be significantly faster to research. Maybe 10% cheaper if 1 civ has found it, 20% if 2 has down to perhabs 70-80% if 20 civs have discovered it. This tyoe of research spillover would be historically correct (no civ is 1000s of years behind in research, except for civs with no contact with others) and would add to the excitement of the game as the strongest civ at one point could be passed by another one.

I also think civs should be able to start with some advances. For instance if a civ has broken off from another one (it should be possible that 10,000 people leave one of your cities and found a new civ somewhere in the world) it shouldn't start off at ground zero. It would get most of the technologies known in the city it broke off from.

Well, HAPPY NEW YEAR EVEYBODY!!!

------------

"If New Zealand can survive the Y2K so can we."
- unknown

[Hodad]

The more the merrier!
I'd say 20 is enough.

[stodlum]

There should be loads of civs! It worked well in Call To Power! If people don't want to play the Welsh, there can be an option to turn certain ones off.

[stodlum]

There should be loads of civs! It worked well in Call To Power! If people don't want to play the Welsh, there can be an option to turn certain ones off.

[Darkstar]

I think there should be ONE at the start. Mine.

Then others evolve, spring up, align, grow, conquer, die...

That would be cool.

No limits on the number of civs in the game. A civ will be MINOR in the PLAYER'S mind. Or Major.

Civil Wars, rebellions, new outpost of new civs (taking along their old nations techs (at least, majority)), etc.

Knowing that there are X amount in the game, and when I have to smash Licoln's America because we are on the same land (and I want his's shares), that the Chinese will suddenly pop up is boring.

-Darkstarr

[S. Kroeze]

The whole issue of major and/or minor civs would indeed be academic when the AI would understand its relative strength or weakness. Survival should come first for most smaller civilizations; but as a result there would be a real difference in behaviour between the great and the minor powers.

I still think my list of 18 civilizations is great. God beware us for Hunnic, Mongolian and Australian civilizations!

[Sikander]

Well, this has been quite a juicy thread.

To start with, I am one of those people who wants to see zillions of tiny Civs/Peoples at the beginning of the game. Civs would be defined as peoples who were agricultural / sedentary in nature. Other peoples would be pastoralists, as mentioned above, who would tend to have no respect for your borders, and be militarily quite capable, as well as mobile. They could become Civilized by conquering a Civ, and going over to a more sedentary way of life. The rest of the map would be filled with hunter/gatherers, who would not necessarily have too much effect on the game.

I would like to see the game work in various scales as time marches on. The first cities would be built on a single square, and draw resources potentially from the surrounding 8 squares. This scale of development would be called a city, and your Civ could have several, though the inefficiency and potential for civil war would increase as you added more of them. A city would be limited to building only the most basic level buildings, such as a Granary, a Temple, a Barracks, a Marketplace and a Library. Cities would be able to produce single military units as well.

At some point your Civ would develop the (Governmental) technology and the infrastructure to advance to a larger scale government. This form of governent would be called a Kingdom (I'm sure there is a better term), and would rule over an area of 9 by 9 squares, or the area which it would have taken 9 cities to rule previously. You could not merely throw a Kingdom up in the wilderness, but would have to establish it by building a palace in an existing city. A Kingdom would eliminate a good deal of the inefficiency and potential for civil war that nine seperate cities would have, and additionally would be able to construct higher level buildings, such as Banks, WoWs, Universities etc.

Kingdoms would be able to create a new unit, the Army, which would be an administrative unit which would be able to stack up to 9 units together and use them in a coherent manner. While units would only deny the square that they occupied from the enemy, an Army would in effect occupy 9 squares (like a ZOC), and would be engaged by any attempt to move adjacent to it. A stacked combat would then occur, perhaps like MoM on a seperate tactical map.

Another scale of government / military could exist above the Kingdom / Army, but the ideas already outlined should suffice to describe it. The advantages to this system of varying scales are several. Firstly, they tend to more realisticly portray the events occurring in the game. Secondly, as your empire expands, they would cut down on the amount of micromanagement necessary. They would also tend to limit empires to more historically tenable areas, through limitations imposed by civil wars and rebellions. One political unit is relatively safe from these sort of events, while each additional unit creates a much more difficult management problem, up to the point where a vast empire is continually racked with civil conflict, and must let go of certain areas, or quickly upgrade it's system of government.

On to other subjects. I really agree with the point made previously regarding food and specialists. Food is really underrated in the current Civ game, at the expense of trade. I would like to see a much more extensive use made of specialists, and have more types of specialists available. I would use a more sophisticated city screen to assign the various groups of people to their jobs. (Like Colonization) Here is a partial list of what I have in mind:

Farmers: Assigned to a square in the city radius to grow food. No prerequisite.

Woodcutters / Miners: Assigned to a square to harvest resources. No prerequisite. Can work the same square as a farmer if the square also produces resources.

Craftsmen: Assigned to the build queue area initially (later to factories etc.) Converts resources into shields. No prerequisite.

Priests: Assigned to the temple. They produce a little bit of science, and the first priest causes one unhappy person to be content. (Up to two priests with Mysticism) Prerequisite, a temple.

Soldiers: Assigned to a Barracks. A segment of the population sufficient in size to man and maintain one (professional) military unit, provided that the requisite weaponry has been produced initially.

Sages: Assigned to Libraries. Produces knowledge.

Merchants: Assigned to Marketplaces. Produce taxes and luxeries, and increase productivity of commodities through superior (market based) distribution.

Bureacrats / Magistrates: Assigned to Palace / Courthouses. Produce tax revenue, and reduce corruption (inefficiency).

Slaves / Construction Teams: Assigned to squares within the city radius to improve the terrain by building the usual mines, roads, irrigation, fortifications etc.

Anyway, you get the idea. Buildings don't provide anything (except upkeep costs) on their own, they have to be manned by specialists. The more advanced the type of building, the more productive the specialist working there. Population working squares advances in productivity based on tech, as well as the presence of certain specialists.

The way to carry all of this out is to reduce the amount of food necessary to support one person to 1. This will double the growth rate, and quickly provide the population necessary to man the buildings in the city.

Something I really liked from SMAC was the idea of supply crawlers. These are units dedicated to the extraction and transportation of a commodity from an area outside of a city radius. I would limit them by forcing the unit to be built like a settler (ie it costs one population). There productivity would be divided by the number of turns it would take for them to move back to the city from there production square. Thus, your fishing fleets could take advantage of that fish square just outside of the city radius, at least until they were destroyed by an enemy fleet, or your city was so closely blockaded that their productivity dropped to zero.

Finally, the trade system in Civ needs to be totally revamped, including trade within a city (trade arrows), between cities of the same Civ, and between different Civs. How many times have you been frustrated by having a city which produces a ton of food, but no shields next to a city which has the opposite problem. Even though these cities might be linked by a RR, there is no way to conduct the obvious exchange in Civ II. (Even producing a food caravan takes forever in a city with no production).

I would like to have a system where you can instantly trade commodities between your own cities. My idea would work something like this. You would have two commodities, Food and Resources. Cities could trade their surplus on a one for one basis, minus inefficiency and subject to the same distance modifiers as the crawler. Caravan units, and / or ships would be required to conduct the trade. When the railroad is built, it will greatly increase the scope of trade potential, allowing workers to only utilize the most efficient squares in their city radius.

If trade between two cities is not efficient enough, or if an oversupply of one commodity is not matched by another, commodities could be sold at the rate of 2 for one gold, or bought at the rate of 2 gold for 1 commodity. Thus, it would be better to trade whenever possible, but cash can be used when necessary.

Trade between Civilizations could be on this model (eg Egypt and Byblos) or could be more akin to trading manufactured goods and luxury items. (Like Civ seems to do now) Both Civs would likely benefit from this sort of trade in terms of money, luxuries, and contact with each other. (Diplomacy and Science). Well, that is more than enough for now.

[Hero Caesar]

I like the idea of major/minor civs, but I'm still having difficulty seeing how it'll be practical. Assuming Civ 3 ships out with only major civs, I'd settle for around 15-20 civs. I like the idea posted earlier about having 10 or so 'slots' to have custom civs in. I'm Australian, but it owuldn't bother me if no Australian civ is in there (never played them in CTP anyway). I personally prefer the ancient civs as opposed to the modern ones (that's just me ).

[Youngsun]

S.Kroeze: Hi! That's very nice list you offered to us. I believe some adjustment is needed in the ranking(Personlly).

7.Latin
8.Byzantine
9.Islamic
10.Indian
11.Mayan
12.Inca
13.Russian
14.Germanic
15.Korean
16.Japanese
17.Anglo-Saxon(Arguable?)
18.Southeast Asian

Latin culture is so IMPORTANT to be in No.10
Byzantine culture,too
Islamic->Do not ignore them!
Indian-You gave too low rank for this civ
Mayan desrves in No.11
Inca deserves in No.12
Russian Civ's influence is great!
Germanic Civ's influence, too. Especially in European languages.
Korean-How come you miss this hermit-Kingdom?
Japanese-Why after Korean? Long time ago, they were much weaker and smaller than Koreans(bC450~)
Anglo-Saxon Why them? For some, they maybe barbarian civ. But since you included Germanic Civ, They deserves to be in the ranking(disagree?)
Southeast Asian is more important than Sub-saharan.

About the ranking No.1~6, I have no objection.

[S. Kroeze]

Dear Youngsun,

I think its important to stress the point that it was never my intention to rank civilizations. I dont believe in the concept of a ranking of civilizations. I started -as you probably noticed- with the oldest and perhaps most hallowed, the Sumerian, and continued first in chronological order, gradually abandoning this "logical" order and just considered the map from west to east. I didn't try to pass judgment.
Perhaps I should have continued in chronological order. In that case the Indian civilization, starting ~800BC, should be mentioned much earlier than the Latin/Catholic civilization, which in my opinion didn't get off before the rise of the papacy and the decline of Byzantine influence in the west(~800AD?). Byzantine is certainly older.

I have to admit that my knowledge of Korean history is practically non-existent. Most historians pondering the subject of these civilizations, McNeill, but also Fairbank and Reischauer, treat them as an offshoot of the Chinese civilization, like the Vietnamese too. The Japanese, about whom I happen to know a lot more, started also as a branch of the Chinese civilization, but developed from the tenth century in a totally different direction. Even McNeill, who is much more selective in discerning only seven individual civilizations, gives them that much credit.
It was not my intention to slight the Koreans. Did they develop a religion of their own making? Is their culture radically different from the Chinese?

The Anglo-Saxons were a Germanic people. Its no accident the English turned protestant; the Irish didn't!

[Titos]

As many as possible

[Youngsun]

Dear S.Kroeze

First of all,I should have known better about the way you made the list so I will withdraw that ranking stuff anyway.

About Japan & Korea:
Much of the current commonality among East Asian countries is due to the extraordinary influence of the early-developing Chinese civilisation on its eastern neighbours,particulary the diffusion of Buddhism and Confucianism into the early states. This is not to say,however,that the later societies growing out of these states were carbon copies of China and lacked their own unique natures. One of the reasons for Japan's ascendancy in the modern world is her unusual development of a complex merchant economy and middle-class culture during the pre-modern Edo period(1603_1868). In fact, Japan's historical relations with the outside world can be mapped in pendulum-like swings from active solicitation and absorption of foreign culture to periods of isolationist incubation leading to the development of a rish and infinitely refined native culture. Such isolationism also took periodically on the Korean Peninsula, with the pre-modern Choson period(1392-1910)being popularly called the 'Hermit Kingdom'. Only in recent times(1868-World War I and during the post-World War II period) has Japan looked to the West during her phrases of foreign receptivity. Before this, China was natural magnet for Japan,Korea and all other peoples of eastern Eurasia.

The crucial period of active importation and adoption of Chinese ways occured in the 6th and 7th centuries. The contemporaneous goverments of the Korean Peninsula(Shilla) and the Japanese Islands(Yamato) both looked at the time to the sui and Tang Dynasties on the China Mainland for administrative system, and after which they could model their new states. Among the items borrowed were the grided city plan of the Tang capital, the regional admistrative system, and code of law.

One fallacy is to think that such countries as 'China', 'Korea' and 'Japan' existed in those earlier periods. They did not. The East Asian landscape was much more politically and culturally varied especially in China mainland and Manchuria and Korean Pennisula. During the Late Zhou, seven states emerged as major rivals:Qi,Qin,Yan,Qiao,Wei,Han and Chu. The period ended with the Qin's conquest of the others in 221 BC and the proclamation of a united Qin Dynasty(221-206BC).Korean culture and infulence existed in Manchuria and the Pennisula. After the destruction of old Choson(2333BC-108BC)by the army of Han Dynasty,the Koreans got splited into several kingdoms.(Puyo,Koguryo,Okcho,Tongye,Samhan) and Koguryo conquered all kingdoms except Samhan and controlled Whole Manchuria and Northern Korea. Later Packje and Shilla emerged from Samhan then it became known as Korean version of three kingdoms(Three kindoms in China:Wei,Wu and Shu)

Another fallacy is to think that the flow of cultural influence was all unidirectional from China Mainland eastwards to the Peninsula and Islands. It was not. constant interaction linked smaller areas of East Asia, and within those spheres, contact and exchange was multi-directional. Moreover, there was considerable influence thoroughout the ages from Eurasian steppe region and from Southeast Asia.

Finally, it is wrong to think that all areas were constantly in touch so that development occurred in concert. It did not. Just as in historical times, there were periods of intense interaction and periods of relative isolation between these geographical areas(China,Korea and Japan). By treating the cultural histories of the modern East Asian countries together,it is possible to gain a sense of the mosaic of early peoples,cultures and polities which cross-cut what are now modern national boundaries. Although each East Asian nation today claims portions of the mosaic for its individual history and interest, the ancient entities belong to no one and nothing other than their own time and place. Therefore it is better to be echewed to say either Japanese and Korean civilisations are Offshoots of Chinese Civilisation.

Thanks.


[This message has been edited by Youngsun (edited February 13, 2000).]

[S. Kroeze]

quote: Originally posted by S. Kroeze on 12-25-1999 12:30 PM I cant resist the temptation of including a historically correct list of the Great Civilizations of History. Most people identify a civilization with a nationality; I'm not against a national element in the game, but everyone should understand the enormous difference separating these concepts. 1. Sumerian/Babylonian 2. Egyptian 3. Indus/Dravidian 4. Chinese 5. Greek 6. Roman 7. Mayan/Meso-American 8. Inca/Andes 9. Byzantine/Orthodox 10. Latin/Catholic 11. Islamic/Near Eastern 12. Germanic/Protestant 13. Russian/Slav 14. Indian/Hindu 15. Japanese 16. Tibetan 17. South East Asian 18. sub-Saharan civilization?? Of course every list is open to debate. As one should acknowledge its religion that identifies all civilizations! One could still argue the existence of a Celtic, Persian or Turkish civilization. But that would be the limit. McNeill, the authority who more or less introduced the concept of civilization in historiography, recognizes even less: Mesopotamian, Egyptian, merging into Near Eastern, (3)Indian, Chinese, Japanese and (6)Western, which he only divides into Greek Orthodox and Latin Catholic. Those asking for Hunnish or Mongol civilizations absolutely miss the point: those were the barbarians!

And yet another thread about which civs to include!
I'm still not convinced by the Koreans. In all these historical surveys there is no trace of a unique Korean religion or culture.

The ICS problem is also analysed in this thread. In my opinion in an intelligent way!

[Dr Strangelove]

I wouldn't mind having the option to have up to 32 civs, provided that it doesn't overwhelm the AI and make the game crash. This is something to consider; CTP, with its animations and multilayered maps, and extra civs was crash-o-matic city! The creators should research the stability of the build with all those extra civs to run.
I have a suggestion with regards to minor civs. By the time civilization appeared, humans had already spread all over the earth. Civilizations geberally expanded into areas already inhabited by other people, so increase the density of goody huts, and make them all inhabited. Upon advancing onto a populated hut, there would be several possible outcomes: (1)The natives surrender, and (a)found a city on the spot, (b)you ask them to move, and they do so peacefully, or (c)you ask them to move and they revolt. (2)The natives fight back, and (a)they lose and acquiesce to your commands, or (b) they win and become barbarians. (3)The natives ask for a bribe to join your tribe, if you don't pay they fight. (4)If slavery is incorporated into the game, you may attempt to enslave the natives, whereupon they may or may not fight. (5)The natives escape, and settle elsewhere or come back as barbarians.

Some goody huts would include money, advances, and etc. in addition to population. The tech level of the goody huts would increase according to the tech levels of any nearby civ. If there aren't any nearby civs, then the tech level is either basic, or about the level of the lowest civ on the map. Goody huts could have city improvements appropriate for their tech level, thereby acting like minor civs. You could even let them have names, and give them a chance to revolt until they have been assimilated after x number of turns.

[MidKnight Lament]

We've already been told than minor civs are in. I'm guessing that part of the reason they're in is to represent things like this.

Some mp people don't like goody huts anyway.

- MKL