Unofficial POLL 3: Would you like to see Minor Civs in Civilization III?

[Gramphos]

Would you like to see Minor Civs in Civilization III? Yes, absolutely Could be good No Don't care What is a Minor Civ?

Here it is a poll on Minor Civilizations.

[Fiera]

I voted for "Yes, absolutely".

Hey, have you created this application yourself? It's cool!

[Wittlich]

Most definately! But don't we already know that they WILL be included?

Oops! Sorry, just read the Thread referencing the MC's...So that's the reason for this poll! Ok folks, I'm with ya now and I do agree - MC's should be included in Civ3!
[This message has been edited by Wittlich (edited April 14, 2001).]

[MrFun]

I only want minor civilizations in the game if they're not going to be pushovers and just to have something to conquer in one or two turns.

[Gramphos]

quote: Originally posted by Fiera on 04-14-2001 09:27 AM Hey, have you created this application yourself? It's cool!

Yes, I've written the code for this POLL and I'm still improving it.

First I had a feature that sorted the results after votes, but it isn't good for this type of polls.

[Henrik]

Yes, absolutely!
MC's is a must!

[Bubba]

I would be interested to know what people mean by "minor" civilizations having not played Imperialism myself? How would they be implemented? What would the interaction be between minor & great civs? Could they change into
one another? It would seem to be difficult to have MC's if you are not located in a specifc time period (e.g., the MC's of the ancient times will be different than the those in N.A. in the age of discovery or those found in imperialism).

With that said, I really enjoyed the interaction between the MC's in Colonization and the great powers. But there needs to be some interaction other than only conquering/destruction of villages. In Colonization one could arm the minor tribe, trade goods with them, send missionaries to convert units to your civ or destroy villages. In turn, some of the MC's were fierce warriors who would attack if you angered them by stealing, converting, or desrtoying villages. If a slaver unit is included that might be another possible interaction with the MC's.

[Gramphos]

I can't answer to your questions as many things are being discussed, and official sources haven’t given any information. Some people suggest that the huts are replaced with minor civs that you may negotiate with, to make them join you, or attack them. Other possible tings is that small parts of grate civs revolts and forms small civs if they are unhappy and have low culture.

[Diablo, Bro. of Mephisto]

yes! definetly. minor civs are a must.

but one thing I am worried about is that they will be too easy, and will only take a couple turns to kill.

I personally would like to see minor civs as like...neutral states, kinda like Switzerland during WWII.
[This message has been edited by Diablo, Bro. of Mephisto (edited April 17, 2001).]

[Jer8m8]

No!
All civs are created equal. Whether or not they end up as one tiny is city is their problem

[tniem]

To tell you the truth, I have been on the forums for over a year now. I have read countless threads on how vital minor civs are to Civ III.

Don't get me wrong, I am not opposed to them, I just don't understand them. What's the point? How do they add to strategy?

I have either seen them one of two ways. One is that they are going to be so easy to defeat that they aren't worth the time. Or two, that they are a part of a larger rise and fall of empires. The second version I am in favor of, however it doesn't appear that Firaxis will include such a feature in Civ III.

So now I ask, why does everyone see Minor Civs as a vital addition to Civ III?

[Nemo]

minor civs as in smaller nations in the list of civs you can pick from - yes
minor civs as in there are major nations and minor nations - power/influence wise during game play?
ONLY IF there are still allowed 8 Major civ max (at least), as was done in the past games.

if not, then that would be like playing with a max of say 5 civs in civ II, but with maybe 3 "minor" civs too, to give you your 8 max. that would suck.

[Ilkuul]

quote: Originally posted by tniem on 04-17-2001 04:41 PM So now I ask, why does everyone see Minor Civs as a vital addition to Civ III?

Well, I've also been following this topic for some time now, but I must have seen different threads and articles from you, tniem, because I've got the strong impression that minor civs will be included - I believe Sid himself said that. And while nothing is set in concrete at this stage, Firaxis have also talked about their more advanced diplomacy model, and how things like cities breaking away from their former civ will be included.

Now if that's going to happen, and suddenly in the midst of the game you're going to get a separate civ popping up which is not a replacement for a major civ that has just 'died' (as in Civ2), then to me that would be one of the most logical ways in which minor civs would come into play. I.e., in addition to the 8 or 16 major civs that you start out with, there would be provision for a certain number of minor civs as well (another 16??), which could (1) occur randomly like the huts of Civ2 ('advanced tribes'), or (2) arise as a result of rebellions, secessions, etc. Sometimes cities revolting from their parent civ would immediately join another major civ.; sometimes they would become a minor civ on their own. They would therefore not necessarily be weak! They might include some of the largest, most well-defended cities of their former parent civ.

For me it's their potential role in rebellions & secessions from major civs that makes the inclusion of minor civs so crucial in Civ3. If there is no setup in the game for diplomatic negotiations with minor civs, then rebellions/secessions of groups of cities can only be handled in a rather primitive, unsatisfactory way - as in Civ1 (see the thread "The citizens of Sparta admire the prosperity of New York" in this forum). Sparta admires New York, and **pouf!** just like that it's left the Greeks and joined the Americans. Unrealistic and unsatisfactory: the last thing the Americans want is a small, under-defended city on their border with the Greeks! But they have no say in the matter. Whereas if Sparta, at least temporarily, becomes a minor civ when it breaks away with Greece, and negotiates with America, then there can be an intermediate period during which America can decide whether it actually wants Sparta or not. And Sparta might end up being reconquered by Greece, or might succeed in going it alone as a minor civ, or might in the end be annexed by America. It opens up so many more possibilities, as well as being a lot more realistic.
[This message has been edited by Ilkuul (edited April 17, 2001).]

[Sindai]

*What Ilkuul said.*

Couldn't'a put it better myself. I was just musing over this a few days ago, and figured all sorts of neat things which can be done with break-away civs, or perhaps a major civ which is split by civil war. In any case, I don't think it could be too difficult to allow plenty more civs in the game - heck, Europa Universalis (a game which we could....ahh...."borrow" ....a lot of good ideas from) has to have something like 2 dozen....

[Gramphos]

As it is another Unofficial POLL 3 out there right now, I’ll like to bring this one back to light. Guess It has to be called Unofficial POLL3a from now .
Currently 67 votes and most of the voters want Minor Civs in the game.