CIVILIZATIONS (ver1.0): hosted by LordStone1

[HolyWarrior]

I posted this previously under the "More Civs!" thread

But How many civs should we be able to choose from? CTP has 32, and I've heard some complaints that some have no business being there.
I've had to stretch to come up to 40, but here goes:
North America:
Sioux *
United States *
Aztec *
Cherokee
Canada
Mayan

South America:
Incas
Brazil
Argentina
(Not a single South American civ in Civ2? What's up with that?)

Northern Europe:
English *
French *
German *
Viking *
Dutch
Russian *
Huns
Celts *

Southern Europe:
Spanish *
Roman *
Greek *
Byzantine
Austro-Hungarian

Africa:
Egypt *
Carthage *
Zulu *
Ethopian
Ghana (The ancient empire, not the modern-day country)

Middle East:
Babylonian *
Persian *
Arab (Should've made Civ 2)
Israel
Turkish

Asia:
Mongol *
China *
India *
Japan *
Khmer (Angkor Wat)
Siamese

Oceania:
Australia
Polynesia (Two words: Easter Island)

* were present in Civ2.
So, did I miss anybody? Anyone I should leave out?

[Stefu]

My definition of Civilization in game: Nation that you could have imagined as world conquerers. So, best additions would be:

Huns
Arabs
Turks
Assyrians
Macedonians
Incas

Howewer, this would scrap at least Sioux and Zulus. Hmm. Got to consider this a bit, since this doesn't leave any civs in south-to-equator Africa.

[kmj]

1) They should have at least 32. If you haven't played with 16 or more civs, you don't know what you're missing! They should warn that it will be slower, though.

2) Don't care too much here, keep the classics. (Even though in CtP I play mostly with the canadians or australians.)

3) No! This kind of game should not have something like that! Say you have the vikings, but the random generator places them in the middle of a huge grassland. Say, midwestern usa. Well, there goes that bonus to longship capabilities. All civs should start out equal. To do otherwise would make it not a civilization game.

4) Yes. The path a civ follows is determined by it's leader. In the same way each player has his own method. They should have personality.

[Kerris]

Here some possibilities:

(Visi)Goths
Moors
Berbers
Mesopotamians
(Anglo-)Saxons
Norse
Normans
Macedonians
Cossaks
Sumerians
Anatolians

[yh30264]

I think the issue with the civs that should or should not be included, is to a certain extent dependant on whether you like civIII to be more historic or futuristic.

I prefer the historical aspects of civII, I would be quite happy to just have the timeline up to the present day, and no futuristic units.

I like the idea of amassing armies of knights or marines, or using stealth fighters.

This is because I can relate to these units... the context that these units exist is a period that I can relate to.

However a futuristic scenario doesn't appeal to me as the units are completely beyond current technology...

Consequently I prefer the ancient civilizations like the babylonians and the aztecs... I cannot relate at all to the idea of a canadian or jamaican empire or civilization.

I suppose we will just have to have a larger pool to choose from.

regards,

Glenn

[Mo]

Minor and Major civs
A major civ should be made into a minor civ if they lose a lot of cities and become small and weak. And revearsely a minor civ will become a major civ when it has a certain military power or has acheived a certain size.

[SnowFire]

Ah, how could I forget the Arabs, Swedes, and Turks?

Diodorus: That's why the minor civs do not have an expansionist foreign policy, and why a weakened major civ can get demoted to a minor civ. That situation would not happen without the 195 city minor civ being long ago promoted to a major civ.

[Andy B]

I dislike the major/minor civ. One of the grate things about civ is tha abilety to change the world.
Btw i think that the maximum players for civ3 shoud be 15.

[Andy B]

Yes let us have the Sweeds as a civ. But why not have nato and the warsaw pakt to.

And I dislike the major/minor civ. One of the grate things about civ is the abilety to change the world.

Btw i think that the maximum players for civ3 shoud be 15.

Happy gaming

[crusher]

I would want to see a alien race. It would apear from a crashing ship and start its own advanced civ. Higher tech would create this civ.

------------------
"War does not determine who is right,It determines who is left."
-Crusher-

[Harel]

I hope no one said exactly the same thing before...
I think it's that the minor/major civ's idea would be included, beacause as Lordstone said, it appears on Birth of the federation.
In that game, the minor civ's have one solar system, a limited diplomatic ability, a major trait ( they have a special ability ), and I belive you can't spy on them.
People are over complexing things. Let's try to see the minor civ's in civ II mode. Consider that as a village you opened, and got a new city.
A minor civ shouldn't be able to form a large civ of her own. That WOULD over complex the algorithem. Also, that could make too many big civ's. So what they should be?
A minor civ should control one city. A very developed city, ofcourse, with a large army. Big borders, lot's of farms and trade, etc.
But still, one city. It should have the option to merge with a large civ, any large civ. And that's it. It won't wage war ( cause then it might take-over another city, and then another... )
It will, however, bravely defend herself.
You shouldnt be able to sign treaties with her, expect trade.
The diplomacy screen with a minor civ should be: Peace / War, Ask for trade / Break trade, offer merger.
That's all.
The number of minor civ, like Birth of the federation, should be decided by the game creator ( like you select the size of the map ), however the MAX number should be as high as you can make it.
That's all.

[Utrecht]

I dislike the major\minor concept. I believe that a civ will grow to fit the definition, i.e. If a civ starts in bad location/inept government (I.e. AI) it will stay a minor problem.

However, if it grows it becomes a major power. History rewards the strong.

[Diodorus Sicilus]

Once more into the breech...

A Major Cic becomes a Major Civ because it made major contributions to Civilization (tech advances, Social advances, etc) or controlled great amounts of territory and people: all things that occur for different civilizations in the context of a game. They should not be Set in Stone before the game even starts.
As to which nations should be in the 'Starting Line-up', one absolute Prerequisite is the capability to set our own civilizations/peoples in the game. If I want to play the Iroquois League or Asterix the Gaul I should be able to crank in those titles, rename my cities as I go, and play on.

Utterly Different Subject:
One problem I foresee with Whopping Multitudes of Civs in a single game: unless you also have a Humungous Map size, you're going to lose a lot of the fun of Exploring the Map. Everywhere yo go after the first few turns, you'll find someone else is already there. Also, after a very short time, there won't be a Goodie Hut left on the map.
And, while the Humungous Map is certainly an option for those with Crays, a bigger map and more Civs means bigger files and especially, bigger Save files. Even with the consistantly speedier processors and cheaper memory, you run the risk of leaving some segment of the gaming public behind, and that hurts sales - which in turn kills game development. No matter how good Civ III is - and if they manage to work in our suggestions, it will of course be a masterpiece - but I don't want to see it be the last Civ game!

[Trachmyr]

Add Minoans!

comments:

Minor civs can only become a major civ if a major civ is reduced in status.

Minor civs should do VERY VERY little.... keep them to one city (or one region), they build a very few units for defence only... Perhaps some units can become "BARBARIANS"... but then that unit is no longer handled by minor civs.

Many minor civs will be primitive by comparison, especially in the late game... so is true with life.

Technology leakeage should be the primary way they gain tech.

Keep minor civs MINOR, this way there can be a bunch of them. They make the game more interesting, but should not slow down the game.


P.S.
I think that CIV3 should KNOW the capabilities of your computer, and at game creation give you an estimate of game performance based upon map size, players, rules, graphics & animations, ect.
The top level games should have future CPU's in mind, but allow slower ones to work as well "77% of System Resouces Used: SLOW"

[meowser]

Hi All,


I've been seeing a lot about minor civs lately and haven't thoroughly read any post on this. I was just wondering:

1. Do all minor civs have to be conquered along with the major players to achieve a conquest victory?

2. Do you suffer any repurcussion for going on a campaign of eliminating minor civs?

Thanks ahead of time