CIVILIZATIONS (ver2.0): hosted by LordStone1

[Grunion]

If a leader dynasty model was developed, one of the variables could be tolerance. (or it could be a value dependant on government type.) The level of tolerance would dictate the probabilities that certain leader types would develop. A low tolerance value would mean that successive leaders would be similar, reflecting purges & indoctrination of potential leaders with different agendas (modern China & Russia). A high tolerance would allow for a greater variety of leader types (Western Europe)

[Imran Siddiqui]

Dynasty? NO! Imagine all the work needed to reseach 100 rulars of a Civ with different personalities! Some people want 100 CIVs. So 100 Civs with 100 personalities each? No way! I want this game sometime within the next 10 years!!

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

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

-Henry Clay

[EnochF]

For the record, I'm not a supporter of completely different ruling styles for leaders. Bugger that. Too much work. I just think it'd make a nice change of pace to change your leaders once in a while, for purely cosmetic purposes, to cover up what seem like flaws in the AI. For example, the Egyptians start trespassing on my territory and generally harassing me. Well, didn't we just have a treaty with them a hundred years ago? Yes, but that was under Consul Zoser of the Egyptian Republic, and now we have to contend with Comrade Tutankhamen of the People's Republic of Egypt... It would make the game feel more like history, is all. Instead of "The Spanish government has been overthrown," we'd hear, "The death of the Spanish king has left a power vacuum, and factions are warring against each other for succession!"

<font size=1 color=444444>[This message has been edited by EnochF (edited June 17, 1999).]</font>

[Mo]

Instead of modeling all of the rulers after real ones in history just have it randomly generate personalities. Some factors would affect that personality, like the personality of the preveious ruler situation of the country for the last 10 years... For names I would suggest a list of resonable sounding names for that civ from which the computer choses. If the name has already been used the computer will just add a number behind his name.

[CormacMacArt]

I don't think that I like the idea for MY civ, but maybe have it represented in the AI, by personality fluctuations depending on a random factor and present events. Thus civs that are normally rational, may become militaristic (for a while) after the loss of their capital. I guess this could be masked by the AI declairing a new leader.

[Picker]

Oh god imran, I'm not saying have a hundred different rulers, I'm just saying that you're ruler dies off. Kal Denny Pick I died off natural causes, Kal Denny Pick II was inaugarated. This kind of thing would affect loyalties, efficiency, etc.

------------------
The Notorious P.I.K.
"Natives who beat drums to drive off evil spirits are objects of scorn to smart Americans who blow horns to break up traffic jams."

[yin26]

-=*MOVING THREAD UP*=-

[LordStone1]

The SUMMARY is up!

[NotLikeTea]

And a fine summary it is, too! Great work!

[yin26]

-=*MOVING THREAD UP*=-

[Narck]

To I. Number of Civilizations Included:

I think that there should be at least the number of civilizations available as offered in CTP.

Furthermore, I think that of modern nations, certain regions (like the Middle East) have not been addressed enough in previous civ-games -> therefore, I would like to suggest to include some nations from that region as well as from South America & Asia.

[Bigcivfan]

I like the idea of Major/Minor Civs in CivIII. Perhaps they could be implimented in the same style as the game IMPERIALISM. Where you traded with them and had limited diplomatic relations. If relations were good enough they would ask to join your empire, but you could always take them by force!!! Another idea would be to do away with barbarians and have minor civs take their place....

[LordStone1]

FYI: I'll be gone for 8 days to Santa Barbara and Santa Monica. Just letting ya know.

[Eggman]

There is one issue with minor civs though. In Imperialism, the timeframe is 1500-1915. At this point, the "world" is already divided among all the powers. There is no unclaimed land anywhere. Not so in Civ where the large majority of the land is up for grabs.

I figure that at the start of the game, there should be a small number of minor civs randomly distributed on the map. Some will be out in the middle of nowhere, others will be near the major civs. As the game progresses, minor civs will spontaneously pop up in unclaimed areas. Those that start up near established civs will be more advanced than those out in the middle of nowhere (they learn from their neighbors). Hopefully, by some time (certainly by 1800), most of the land (with some unpopulated areas remaining to be discovered) will be populated by somebody and diplomacy replaces exploration as a major factor.

When a major civ dies (or becomes marginalized), one of those minor civs should become a major civ.

In a perfect world, there will be an option to play without minor civs. Perhaps also an option to play with more or less minor civs too.

[Bigcivfan]

Yes Eggman!!! That is exactly the idea I had in my mind. Minor civs would add a whole extra dimension to the game and I think they should be included.