CIVILIZATIONS (ver1.1): hosted by LordStone1

[LordStone1]

Continue the discussion here. It's going great. I'll make that summary soon but I've got a big test tomorrow....

[Travathian]

I like the idea of having just the standard 7 civs, and just make customiziation of them done thru a utility like ACEdit.

[Shining1]

Some comments:

The major/minor civs thing should be included - but not using different civs. If you have around 30 cultures available, you can then have 16 as the main players, and another 8 or so as minor cultures, providing players with the ability to capture minor techs (plug for my idea), new towns, and possibly units. As well as spawning barbarians.

Holy Warrior: No, don't think easter island for the polynesians - think Tonga, Samoa and New Zealand.

Civs should be included on the basis of distinctiveness, geography and greatness. Hence the swedes are not the vikings, because they achieved different things in different eras.

And there definitely should not be any difference in the civilisations along the lines of social engineering stats. This would cause unimaginable damage to the game on any number of levels. What with SMAC's wildly imbalanced sides (PK's anyone? Anyone? Oh well...), it's highly debatable whether this was a good move AT ALL.

There hasn't been any response so far to the minor techs idea. Does this have any potential?

Shining1 (citys & regions threadmaster)

[LordStone1]

The minor techs may belong better in the technology thread, although I will include it in the summary.

[Paul]

1) How many civilizations should be in the game?
As many as the players want. If I wanted to play with 100 or 200 civilizations I should be able to do that.

2) Which civilizations?
Whichever they can think of and some more. If you want to play with lots of AI players you will need them. But some civilizations should have higher chances of being selected. I would certainly be disappointed if I had a three civ game with Luxemburg, Andorra and Liechtenstein, so civs like the Chinese, Spanish or Aztecs should have a bigger chance of being selected when you start a game.

3)Should the civilizations have special abilities?
NO!!!! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! Absolutely not.

4) Should each civilization have a personality?
There should be different AI personalities. I don't know if they should be randomized at the start of a game or that the Mongols should always be troublemakers.

[NotLikeTea]

Been thinking about special abilities again.. no doubt this has been discussed before, but here goes.

As I tihnk most people agree, any special abilities based on civilizations borders on racism, and is clearly a bad idea. On the other hand, different civilizations in history are different from eachother. How to manage this?

Leaders. Take the Scythians (a rather obscure civilization, I know) They were extremely warlike, with the men in front killing people and raiding villages, and the women and children behind, slitting the throats of the wounded. Why were they like this? It was a choice. The Scythians never developed agriculture. They had the choice of trying to invent it, or just going out and capturing food from other civilizations.

This is how civilization differences could be implemnted, a bit like SMAC. This civ would take the Conquer option over others if this is a choice given. Another civ may have a leader who would try to take a diplomatic solution, or a scientific solution...

This should be somthing that, liek in SMAC is randomizable, so you get civs with character, but not predictible.

[Eggman]

I am starting to dislike the idea of civilizations have starting advantages and disadvantages. As people have mentioned, they may not remotely fit the starting area of the culture.

While I like the idea of Civs "earning" advantages, how about the concept of "experience points" as used by many fantasy games? From time to time, you will be given points to spend on whatever particular advantages that you want.

Not sure if I like the idea, but I thought I would throw it out there.

[CormacMacArt]

At present (Civ II) there are 27 different possibilities for unique civilizations. What other personality qualities are we adding to get more?
Also, part of what made each civ unique, was how they applied technology to their situation. For example, the Aztecs used obsidian/wood weapons that were sharper than any metal blade. I think that we should let some qualities "develop" depending on where each civ is.

[Koyaanisqatsi]

I still like the idea of assigning civ attributes based on starting position. They should be fairly limited, though, like a single tech or maybe a +1 bonus in something (growth, naval movement, mining, etc.) Really, attributes wouldn't be assigned to a certain civ anyways in real life. Do you really think the English would have been a naval power if they had lived in central Siberia? This also solves the problem of offending anyone by giving out racial attributes.

[Mo]

There should be more minor civs to start out. Probably around 16. The further you get in the game they will slowly be reduced and then there will be a group a major powers. The minor civs should be able to grow into major civs if they rise in power. This should also go reversly that a major civ can be reduced to a minor civ.
The major factor limiting the number of civs in single and multiplayer mode is the processer and network speed.

[SnowFire]

Are we forgetting the idea mentioned before about not giving Civs bonuses, per se, but merely focuses? Each Civ would have different technology priorities as well as military policies, but no in-born "plusses" and "minuses," like in SMAC.

[LordStone1]

Great ideas, keep them coming. That summary will be up soon!

[Harel]

The option to edit 7 civ is bad, mainly because in today multi-player world, 7 player game ISN'T ENOUGH.
A new game, Malkari, allows up to 40 ppl over e-mail.
Now, that IS a too-high number, true. But still, Civ III should allow as many players as I want. It should as customaziable as possible.
Same thing about minor civ. You decide how many you want. Don't like them? Don't belive in minor techs? Choose 0. But we should have the option.
The is good, mainly because is will fill the world with civs ( as is really is ), without over-crowding it with diplomacy and AI algorithems.

[Isle]

Although I am fundamentally against special abilities, it seems that there are some for whom its vital. Therefore I am going to suggest a model, that I at least could live with, but still would vote against if it came down to that or totally equal civs.

The main problem with special abilities is that it would be hard to balance with too many. Therefore there must be fewer,
some has suggested basing them on starting location, but that could be difficult for the computer to figure out, and people might end up with something they didnt want, even if it was ideal for their starting location. I suggest instead making a short list with 8 or so profiles with different advantages and disadvanges, like the factions of SMAC, and then letting the player choose which one he wants. The computer players could have a standard choice or three choices to be chosen among randomly.
The profiles for your civilization could f.x. be: Great Seafarers, Great Warriors, Great Diplomats, Great Farmers, Great Inventors, etc.
And when not controlled by a player the Viking f.x. would either be Great Seafarers, Great Warriors or Great Diplomats(modern scandinavia).

[NotLikeTea]

I like the idea of "Great ..." but not something to be given out randomly.

Would a civilization arising in the Andes be "Great Seafarers"?

Necessity is the mother of invention. I like the idea of having these grow. As you build a lot of boats, you would be better at seafaring.

If they would be given, they should not be random. A civ by the sea might be great seafarers, a civ by the plains might be great farmers, etc. I'm not sure if I like this idea, yet.... though it is not assuming that civs are somehow genetically superior at something (a bad route to take) but is encompassing the history that occured BEFORE the game starts.. hrm...