Down with "Minor Civs"!

[Christantine The Great]

I have read alot about the minor civ idea and I think it is totally unnessary. I don't think there should be any restrictions on civs just because they are not tough enough or rich enough or smart enough to compare to other civs. I once played a game where I only built 4 stinky cities. In these stinky 4 cities I had a quarter of the Wonders of the World, a strong enough navy and I controled the only access way between two huge continents. I was a Democratic government that could easily muster up an army to repulse an invasion force. If I had the minor tribe's restrictions I would probably be a Despotic empire full of corruption and losing a battle aganst a huge army of the countries of the world I was on. My point is that Civ III should not punish the small and the weak because they don't have 50,000 gold, a 300 piece army and are up to Future Tech 85. And then there are the actual examples like the Colossus of Rhodes, Stonehenge, The Snake Mounds in Missouri, U.S.A. It is not the exception, it is the rule. Cultures can and will build great Wonders even if there work force numbers only 500 or less.

O.K. now pound me with examples about cultures that were wiped out and never grew to greatness.

------------------
"Adorare Christantine!!!"
Republican Decree #1

[The Joker]

I couldn't agree less. There should be no difference between minor and major civs.

But there should be:

- An AI that knows how powerful it is.

- Several more civs.

- The ability for a small civ to rise to greatness in just a few hundred years, and the ability for a large one to collaps into obscurity in the amount of time.

------------------
"It is only when we have lost everything
that we are free to do anything."
- Fight Club

[Deathwalker]

If we are to get rid of minor civs then we need to have an option to have way more players. The world has had loads of civs all starting at different time, and when some disappeared they were replaced by a new one in the area, not necassaily conquered.

------------------
I have walked since the dawn of time and were ever I walk, death is sure to follow

[phunny pharmer]

No. Do not get rid of small civs.

Small civs will add flavor to the game. They are each an individual ***resorces*** to be exploited. After all, that seems to be what civ2 is about, and thus what civ3 will be.

Has anyone ever played Imperialism2? I would like to see small civs like those. You can exploit them peacefully, or you can kick them around. However, I would like to see small civs with attitudes- if you kick them, they should try and kick you back!

Oh, and by the way, Christantine The Great, you shouldn't be a minor civ. You're too powerful with that many wonders. However, more civs = more targets = more friends = more enemies = more fun = I can say DIEDIEDIE a few more times each game...

[Christantine The Great]

Phunny Pharmer

I have never played Imperialism 1 or 2 but I would think that if a "minor civ" was under the yoke of a powerful civ than it would never be able to get out of that yoke until the controling civ had weakened and fell which would mean that for maybe for two thousand years a civ would be unable to "upgrade" itself. And how does a "minor civ" defend itself if it has restrictions on it. If we are to rewrite history then why should we have restrictions. In history there were no laws set up by all big civs on how to classify themselves and how to penalize their weaker counterparts. Are we saying that we need to further weaken weaklings so we can push them around?

------------------
"Adorare Christantine!!!"
Republican Decree #1

[Youngsun]

Christantine The Great

I don't know whose version of "minor civ" you are refering to but my vision of Major/minor civ simulation only applies to "AI" not Human players.

As Joker has pointed out, AIs should be able to evaluate its own power then behave based on how powerful they are thus no more ridiculous diplomatic move of CivII can be made by the AIs.

Power should be always in relative term not the fixed numeric figure as you might fear. Even if you have 3~4 cities but those are the only cities in the World you are powerful indeed. You would be pathetic when you own 300 howies and others can field several thousands of them.

Current AI code can be divided like this;
Expansionistic
Aggressive
Perfectionist
Peaceful
etc.
no matter how powerful the AI controled civ is!

If we can differentiate AIs' diplomatic/military behaviour based on their military/economic might plus their base behaviour(Aggresive~) things would be quite interesting. Don't you think?

[UltraSonix]

This "minor civs" idea goes back to something I once said - I said that you sould still be able to gain techs/wield influence even if you are a very small country, much like Switzerland is quite prominent in diplomatic circles. This would require the diplomacy system to be greatly enhanced, as well as the trading system, so that a small civ will be sable to survive against far larger neighbours. (When I said this, though, nobody liked my idea )

------------------
No, in Australia we don't live with kangaroos and koalas in our backyards...

[Zer0_T0lerance]

Aww, lighten up Sonix. I absolutely love this idea! Get down with minor civs!

Woohoo! For that, you win 5 stars! Or is that 5 smiley's. . .



------------------
Zero
[This message has been edited by Zero_Tolerance (edited November 18, 2000).]

[Shogun Gunner]

Small civs stature could be much enhanced if the diplomatic aspects of the game are improved.

The small guys have to watch out for all the elephants rumbling about. Alliances are a tool to keep certain elephants off ya. Switzerland isn't exactly bullying other countires around. What they have done is position themselves very carefully with a strict code of neutrality and economic openness from which they have benefited greatly. It would be nice to have the Switzerland model of civ growth available to us or the AI player.

[Tical_2000]

I'm assuming that all minor civs would be swallowed up by opposing nations well before 14 or 1500 A.D. Considering this, my question is: "What's the point?". The most you could gain from these minor civs is a few cities, a map, and some petty tech. Why not just declare war on a major civ and go for the full nine yards?

[Adm.Naismith]

Point one: Firaxis told to us Minor Civ will be IN.

(Please don't ask me for link, is around here as a Sid post: do your homework )

Point two: it is possible that minor Civ will take place of goody Huts and Barbarians.

You don't find a hut anymore, to check and see what happen: you will find a bunch of town with some special advantage that you can find more useful as a trade partner and an ally that as a target for your next offensive. As in SMAC as find more useful to gain a faction Pact Brother (ally) than crush it.

Barbarians and Pirate can change to be regular troops by minor Civs: at least you will have a target for your vengeance!

------------------
Admiral Naismith AKA mcostant

[Tiberius]

I like the minor civs idea. Maybe the difference between a major and a minor civ will be the willingness of a civ to rule the entire world.

I agree with The Joker when he says "The ability for a small civ to rise to greatness in just a few hundred years, and the ability for a large one to collaps into obscurity in the amount of time.", but not necesary all civs resulted from the collapse of a great one should become again empires. Some yes, but some don't. Maybe they are a bunch of peacefull people who just want to "play Switzerland".

[Christantine The Great]

But a civ should not have limitations forced on it just because if its place on the power chart. Switzerland could just take all of the money in their bank accounts but if it was just a minor civ (It is smaller than most of the countries in Europe and most of the states in the U.S.) than it would not get this power.
If a civ has the potential to grow but does not want to use it the civ still deserves the power to use the potential.

------------------
"Freedom, Trade, Christantine!"

The Viking Archives

[beyowulf]

quote: Originally posted by Christantine The Great on 11-21-2000 10:35 AM But a civ should not have limitations forced on it just because if its place on the power chart.

What limitations? As I see it, there would be no limitations, except the ones that would also affect major civs. The minor civs, as far as I know, would not be 'handicapped', and if the circumstances were ripe, could rise to be major civs.

[Shogun Gunner]

quote: Originally posted by Christantine The Great on 11-21-2000 10:35 AM But a civ should not have limitations forced on it just because if its place on the power chart. Switzerland could just take all of the money in their bank accounts but if it was just a minor civ (It is smaller than most of the countries in Europe and most of the states in the U.S.) than it would not get this power. If a civ has the potential to grow but does not want to use it the civ still deserves the power to use the potential.

I don't think we disagree. I think any civ should have the potential to be big, I just want a way to be competitive if I only have four or five cities. There should be many ways to win.