CIVILIZATIONS (ver1.0): hosted by LordStone1

[Mo]

Minor civs should have more than one city or they will never be able to keep up with technology and then will be easily conquered. I think minor civs should have 4 or less cities and posses no nukes. They will only go to war if they're chances of winning ground are good. They should be able to merge with another civ. Either join a major civ or merge with a minor to form a major. If they have nukes it would raise them to major status because they no pose a risk to any other civ major or minor.
Minor civs should easily agree to alliances since they can be crushed by a major civ. Major civs should in return concentrate more on conquering major civs than minors. I would expect that in the latter part of the game most minor civs would have either joined a major, or have been conquered by a major, or formed a major civ either alone or by merging with another minor. Minor civs could also be formed by a city breaking off of a major civ because of civil unrest.

[Dominique]

Gentlemen, quite frankly, I absolutely can't understand all this buzz about which civ is to be included - no, really!

I'd be satisfid with just 8 civs - PLUS AN OPTION TO EASILY ADD ONE MYSELF. That's it. CIV2 was already near to it: I could give myself a name, tell the comp what's the name of my people, could even outline the titles for various governments - hey, what else do you want??? All that's needed is an option to save those names and a city list, if so desired... who cares if the Germans are in from the beginning? If they are not, I'll implant them. Fullspot.

No, what I think is more important is the thing about civs having different attributes. What I propose is having a set of personalities / advantages / disadvantages which are randomly assign for each game. A human player can pick a civ and a personality set.

Be honest, it's a bit silly to assign e.g. "aggressive" to a whole civilization and associate that with the name, isn't it? Why are the Indians peaceful? Only because there was a Ghandi? Come on...

So this would be the solution for allowing an unlimited number of civs while not offending anyone by associating "his" civ with negative attributes.



------------------
Well, if we took the bones out they wouldn't be crunchy, would they?

[Blade Runner]

Practically we can ask to get ALL Civs in the world. How many can be? 300 - 400? From the program side it is not a problem to read from the disk all this information. The only thing is to research this information about the civs or countries. i.e. I'm Hungarian. I want's to play like a Hungarian when the program just installed on my machine. Like you want to start like an American or a Beduin or anything else.

Blade Runner

[LordStone1]

<h1>THREAD CLOSED</h1>

Continue in CIVILIZATIONS (ver1.1)

[Diodorus Sicilus]

- First Post in this Thread -
Major and Minor as adjectives for Civs should come about according to how the game plays, not be a Standard Built-In Feature. If a Major Civ is defined, I for one will feel a little silly when it has two cities total in 1999 and the Minor Civ has 145!
Starting Attributes for Civs could be historical, but such things frequently are geography-dependant: the Vikings were great seafarers because they had a long coastline, lots of wood, and not enough farmland for everyone, not because the Norse are inherently seaworthy...
Instead, how about setting attributes based on starting Climate/Terrain? For instance, if the computer starts your first Settler near a desert, you might start with Irrigation as a tech Advance. Starting with a Horse or Cattle icon on aplain/grass tile, and the civ may start with Domestication Advance. Starting on an island (defined as less than X tiles of contiguous land) you'd have a jump on Ship Building or whatever the first advance that gets you off that island is.
This also raises the possibility of setting your own Civ not by title, but by attribute: give the option of not playing Polynesians, but Hot-Wet Climate Island Civ and name it the Maori and start in - more flexibility to the player, which is always (I think) a Good Thing.
As I see it, the choice is either have the game programmed so that certain Civs always start on certain terrain, or have the Initial Attributes depend on where the Civ starts, per the example above.
Choice one has a problem, in that I absolutely insist on the option of setting the nations playing, (so that, among other things, I can play an Ancient Game with Celts, Romans, Carthagenians, Greeks, etc) and if I specify a Cold Dry World and then specify a bunch of Hot - Desert Climate Civs like Assyria, Egypt, Aztecs - the computer might have a devil of a time placing them at all!
Choice Two has the problem that you can end up with some very Un Historical combinations: Vikings who are desert nomads, for instance, or Germans who are island-hopping tropical types.
What's the opinion out there - I see drawbacks with both, but I prefer either one to a PreSet definition of Major or Minor Civ and Attributes that are utterly independant of the situation the Civ finds itself starting in

[Diodorus Sicilus]

While I'm here...
If the CivIII crew is looking for an Unpaid Historian, I'm not quite Unpaid but could be for them.
Qualifications: 15 military history titles in print, guest lecturer in Military History at the ORIGINS gaming convention, contributor of scenario information to both SSI and Talonsoft games, author or collaborator on two sets of historical miniatures rules, familiar with almost all areas of military history (MA on Alexander the Great, recent writing on Soviet and German Army WWII) European Ancient, early modern, and modern history, Asian ancient and medieval military history, and American Colonial, Native, and early modern history. Some background in Ethnology and Geography, reasonably fluent in German, Russian, Ukrainian, and French.
My time is always available to make a great game even better - why else am I here?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Arab (Should've made Civ 2)

Actually, they were. Look in rules.txt! Everything for them is there (except a female ruler, I put Muhammed's daughter Fatima in there). You just have to put it in for one of the 21 original civs (I took out the Carthaginians). Same with the Incas.


------------------
Imran Siddiqui
Moderator SG Forums - www.sidgames.com/forums/ ,

"Sir, I would rather be right than be President."

-Henry Clay

[Depp]

The Minor/major civ is really interesting but it will probably be really really hard to implement.

I really want more civs and more restrictions for expansion so noone conquers the whole america before the techniology was present to achieve supplies and control.

Units should not be able to wander off to far, and, like in CTP, empire sizes should be limited both in city numbers and in amount of land.

Then you can have more civs and everyone focuse more on the neighbours and less AI calculations are required.
Then as time goes empires grows and incorprates other civs by conquest or other means.

And it should be fairly easy for countries to be divided by revolts and stuff, like it is in the real world. Everyone that grows beyond what they control either got invaded or suffered internal disputes.

And color-coding the population will give the old egypts a chance to reinstate their own land, and start their empire again.

and it goes on and on....

[Lancer]

We should be able to play with as many civs as our individual processers can handle.

If I have a Cray computer please tell me why you don't want me to be able to play with as many civs as there are countries so I can tell you where you can file your reasoning.