CIVILIZATIONS (ver2.0): hosted by LordStone1

[NotLikeTea]

The comment on pawns is very important.

Look at our century. Korea was an important war, but not a major civ (at the time, at least..). Vietnam was an important war, but not a major civ. Look at today.. is Yugoslavia a major civ?

Most of the important political/millitary actions of the last 100 years have involved minor civs to a great degree. Seldom does one major power go to war with another major power directly. In the second world war, Germany attacked the smaller countries before dealing with the really big powerful ones.

Minor powers could lead to cold wars, which is something I desperately want to see in the game. I have no diea how to implement them, though....

[Stefu]

Hawaiians... That sounds bad. In Earth map, this civ would be cramped on single island for quite long time. Also try to find about 30 Luxembourger city names.

I think civs shouldn't have any bonuses-minuses, however they should have agenda like factions had in SMAC. This would be lots of fun, especially wen we get to diplomacy. However, careful must we be when we decide which civ gets which agenda.

Also, I like idea of minor civs. I think minor civs should be born:

1. by revolution, and
2. if barbarians hold one city for, say, 3 turns.

However, it'd get tougher if we have to decide city names for civs. Minor civs shouldn't have ability to build new cities. For naming: If civ is born by revolution, it would have preset name (ie Civ that revolute from Americans would be Confederates) and maybe there would be multiple name choices if there are many revolutions. If it is born by Barbarian way, it'd get name of the Barbarian group that captured it (remember those Avars?)

[Ekmek]

.

<font size=1 color=444444>[This message has been edited by E (edited June 23, 1999).]</font>

[Ekmek]

I'm still for the minor civ idea. I kinda like the minor civs not having settlers, but if they do that they need to create either an engineer unit that can't make cities or something like it (I didn't like the CTP way of building because I tend use my settlers as "combat engineers" who add maneuver on the front line of battle and you can't do it in CTP).

I added in another thread (Game Atmosphere) about Cold War competition being more involved then just a peaceful arms or space race (the olympics was an idea). But if you have minor civs you can have client state wars like we had in the past 50 years (instead of al the aliances being entangling and nuclear war always breaking out).

To add to my horse idea (and i should add it to minor techs) maybe they should make different types of goody huts that represent different resources like elephants and horses this would add to the character of civilizations (this could lead to culture special techs and maybe determine who is minor and who is major).

[Andy B]

God didn´t tell witch civ that shoud be major/minor, When it all began. So why should we?

[Eggman]

Just brainstorming...

As an alternate to the minor power concept, if wimpy powers would act like wimpy powers (grovel and look for alliances) this wouldn't be such a big idea. But they don't. The Zulus down to one city demand tribute and threaten you with their two units and declare suicidal wars against enemies 20 times their size. A change in AI might change things for the better.

Of course, this doesn't deal with the fact that a standard Civ2 game has a grand total of seven civilizations. On anything but a small map, that leaves huge tracts of land unclaimed. I would prefer to have something to fill those spaces.

Also remember that even though CTP had 32 civs, Firaxis may stick with the ole reliable 7 or 8. Having more civs may make the AI more difficult to program. This allows them to have more civs without complicating the AI too much.

Plus, in every edition of Civ, diplomacy is unimportant. With minor powers, diplomacy is very important. To be quite honest, I want some peaceful options to expanding my empire beyond building a size one city and waiting 50 turns for it to be useful.

Even if they don't take the minor power idea, I think the concept of spontaneously appearing civs in neutral area is a very good idea on its own merits. Spices up play a bit.

[DARTH KRAFTER]

I agree with eggman - if you have more and more civs, some will be "minor" without being designated so from the start. Also, a minor civ will never be a threat, leaving no possibility for respect from the player who will demand tribute, ect. If all civs are on a level playing field, then any civ has any possibility, making the game more and more random.

minor note: civIII should include the Ottomans!!

[Flavor Dave]

On minor civs--every X number of turns (25? 50?) the computer randomly picks a tile at least X squares from any city and starts a minor empire. This minor civ basically will be like the advanced tribe we already know. Early, it just has one unit, adds city improvements, and roads (for increased trade). You can trade with it. Minor tribes should have some kind of automatic GL type facility--perhaps minor tribes automatically get every tech discovered by every civ, or every civ but one (in a game with 6 civs, once 5 have discovered something, it is known to all minor tribes). You have to do something with this, or else these minor tribes will have legions defending their cities in 1900. And that would be pointless.

Further, every time the computer pops out a new minor civ, each existing minor civ founds a new city (space permitting). Do this until there is no more room for minor civs. Minor civs will place a VERY high priority on getting alliances.

With some thought from Firaxis, the "major minor" civs (the oldest ones, which will have 5 cities in the modern era) can be an important part of any cold wars. That would answer alot of problems I've seen raised regarding realistic diplomacy in the modern era.

On dynasties--it sounds like great fun; there could be some really cool, fun movies of burials and coronations. Plus, with the "newspaper" idea from another thread, you could have another way to keep track of what you civ accomplished (in the reign of Abraham Lincoln III, the Americans converted from a monarchy to a republic, conquered 2 cities, founded 3 others, etc. etc.). I suggest that there be a small "window of death;" the rulers last from 50-70 turns, at random. Or better, it starts at 35-55 turns for Abraham I, is 40-60 for Abraham II, etc. Each AI ruler will be more or less warlike, expansionist (the scale for this should be bigger than from -1 to +1), and each successor will be more or less like his dad/mom, but slightly different. Let's say the scale will be -10 to +10. If Genghis I is +8 warlike, his successor will be (randomly) between +6 and +10.

Or maybe not completely random. A civ with Pyramids will have a bias towards expansionism, a civ with Sun Tzu will have a bias towards fighting.

Thoughts?

[SnowFire]

Diodorus: You're absolutely right... IF your system is used. I highly doubt that, however. Instead, if the normal abstraction is used, a minor civ with only 2-3 cities creates a much more realistic feel as the game goes on. "Letting the dice fall as they may" creates one gigantic Mediterranean region circa 3000 B.C. - A.D. 1 over the entire map.

Imran: The problem with that is that under CivX, if you leave the Aztecs in Mexico until 1500 and then come for them with your sophisticated arquebuses and crossbows, you're in for a shock- the Aztecs will have colonized the entire continent and have ironclads by then since they've had no natural enemies. Historically, some civs have just sat there in the New Stone Age and never broke through to high technology. Even the Incas, who were quite advanced compared to most Native Americans, never discovered bronze working. In a normal game of Civ, this simply wouldn't happen.

And plus, remember there are always chances of reversals- the Arabs were a minor civ up till around AD 700, after which they became a major civ (and still are today). The Japanese were a minor civ up until Perry, after which they became minor (and, if we were running a game of Civ, the Dutch would then get kicked out of the major power position).

Another good idea to incorporate what DS says- Maybe only start with 4-6 major civs, and as the game progresses, grow the number to 8-10 as lucky minor civs like Japan are annointed major powers. Maybe, if the Incas were lucky enough to beat Pizarro, they'd be promoted to major power on the spot since they've seen such advanced technology, and start researching and founding new cities normally.

Speaking of the Incas, the minor civs should definitely NOT be limited to one city, unless of course they're so crowded out they never got the chance/lose all their cities but one. I'd say a normal expansion in the early game, if a bit slower than most, to 2-3 cities that are in comfortable distance. Perhaps 4. Later in the game, minor civs with unusual amounts of unsettled territory around them can expand even more to 7-8 cities, make war on their fellow minor civs (like Japan invading Korea, the Aztecs attacking the other Mexican tribes) and perhaps become Major Civs if succesful enough.

And I reiterate- technology bleed should be on the basis of nearby civilizations. If you use "All but one of the major civ's techs," you're going to wind up with horribly backward MN's, quite unlike the Belgium of today, and on the flip side, the MN's in a Major Nation starved area will be TOO advanced, since they never really ran into contact with that. Enforce the rules with them; they only get technologies they research, even though they have a scant 2-3 cities to do it with. As for how the bleed should be handled, I say each nation at war counts as 1/3, each neutral nation 2/3, each nation at peace 1, and each nation in alliance 2. What do those numbers mean? If Tech A is in the hands of a civ the MN is at war with and a civ the MN is at peace with, the MN point tally for that tech is 1. That means that every turn, the MN has a 1/N chance of discovering the tech through bleed. If the MN met another nation and formed an alliance, it would have a 3/N chance of discovering the tech every turn. N would be equal to the rate of tech bleed to Minor Nations, hackable in the rules.txt file. 8 would be a standard number for fairly heavy tech bleed; 6 would mean it's really hard to keep secrets from them when they get the critical add to "1" on a tech; and 16 would delay them getting a tech for a good bit, even if they have friends with the tech. It should be noted that if the point score for a tech is below 1 for a minor nation, they have no chance; I.E. If you're the only one in contact with a MN and you're at war with them, there will be no leakage. The virtues of this system is that the more contact a MN gets, the more techs that bleed to it and the faster it gets them; but if you, a major power can keep the MN isolated, they will be at your mercy. Don't count on it though; remember, other MN's count in this calculation. If you and other civs let a certain tech slip to them, and they're at peace with other MN's, a tech can spread through the MN's despite the best efforts of the major powers.

"But," you say, "then I'll simply conquer every MN that comes before my path, before they have a chance to bleed some of my technology. And so will the AI. Result: No MN's."

Well, you fix that through what I call "far contact." You don't have a radar as to where these civs are. When you get close enough, these trading minor civs get a level of contact with you that's not quite neutrality, but more info than the closed tounges of war. So I give far contact with a civ 1/2 a point. So if you and another civ both have a certain tech and are both reasonably close to another MN, they start rolling the dice to get a chance at bleeding it to them.

Besides, if you aquire a repuation as a ruthless conqueror, your conquered citizens will revolt and throw you out at the first sign of weakness. Keeping loyal, homeland-supported Imperial Garrisons in every town is going to tax your resources. And should you recruit any native units to help you, a la Romans recruiting Germans... god help you if they join the angry populace.

Plus, I forget where the topic for nationalism was, but I'm going to put it here. Earlier in the game, this should play far less a role- all the barbarians tribes of Northern Italy considered themselves Roman after a fashion, and the unification of Italy in the 1800's provoked no dissent. Same with Germany, a minor tribe who starts an independence movement and eventually unifies to a major power. But Balkanized areas in more modern times stay that way. The Irish did not become British after being conquered; they still considered themselves Irish. Thus Irish nationalism while occupied against Britain is greater than Northern-Italian nationalism against Italy (there is none, basically.)

Whew, that was a ramble.

[Ecce Homo]

* You in the major/minor civ debate: Can you please be more brief?

* I oppose the idea of civs being labelled "major" and "minor". I do not see any advantage before simply having more civs.

* There has never been a tribe called Vikings. A viking was a sailor from Denmark, Norway or Sweden in the 9th to 11th century.

* Firaxis should include any contemporary or historic nation/tribe for which twenty city names, one male and one female leader are known.

Anyone who disagrees?

<font size=1 color=444444>[This message has been edited by Ecce Homo (edited June 24, 1999).]</font>

[Transcend]

No initial major/minor civs. Remember, this is a game, not a historic simulation!! Roman civilzations certainly did not start in 4000BC, and America never was destroyed by Sioux. But do above examples bother anyone playing Civ2? I guess most of you don't. What makes this game fun is that you can totally rewrite history and see familiar civs taking a different development.
The only realistic way to implement major/minor civ concept is to determine them dynamically. That means updating the status of each civ after certain turns. Suppose there are 15 civs in the game, major/minor civs will be determined every 50 turns according to their pop, econ, science, military, and wonders. The top 5(or 6) can be counted as major and the rest as minor. Then after another 50 turns a new evaluation will be done. It's almost certain that some major and minor civs will swap their status. This solution will maintain both realism and gameplay. I hope you guys agree.

[Bigcivfan]

After reading postings I want to offer revisions to the minor/major civ debate. I think that all civs should start out equal, as minor civs. A civ should have to meet certain prerequisites to reach major civ status. (such as military power or civ size?) Minor civs will be inclined to flock towards the major civ of their choice. Being a major civ should entail some advantages (and possibly disadvantages.) Maybe the first five major civs could have a permentant veto in the U.N. Major powers would definatly have more diplomatic powers. A nation should not be permanently branded a major or minor power for the duration of the game, but can gain and fall from status; such as the fall of Rome and the rise of the United States. Imagine a game of CivIII where the ruling major civs go to war and are so weakened that two minor civs, Luxembourg and Brunei, rise up in the power vacuum and take control of the world...what possibilites would exist with a system like this....

[Flavor Dave]

" I oppose the idea of civs being labelled "major" and "minor". I do not see any advantage before simply having more civs."

Let me give it a shot. I'll start by saying you may very well be right.

Still, it is my opinion that if you start a game on a normal map with 14 civs, a good number of them, maybe 5, will have basically no chance. They'll be hemmed in, and gone in no time, by 2500 BC. OK, now you're down to 9. And I'll bet that you lose a few more by 1 AD. So, now you've just got a normal civ game.

OTOH, if you periodically create minor civs, in *safe* locations, and give them a different diplomatic program and status, then you won't have a normal Civ game. If you start with 7, but follow my idea of creating minor civs every 50 turns (for example), and have each grow by one city every 50 turns, then you have a better chance of having them survive to modern times, and affecting the game.

[Ecce Homo]

I still do not understand what is the purpose of having major/minor civs. Why can't we just have "civs"?

[Diodorus Sicilus]

I'm most definitely against labeling any civ 'minor' or 'major' from the beginning of the game. Not only is it unrealistic, it stifles play, can potentially PO players, and removes some of the chance to radically change history that, I think, is one of the selling points of the Civ games.
One alternative is to have a Player Option you can set in defining your Game Parameters: Historical or Random Start. In an Historical Start, each civ will have as many of the characteristics of the 'real' civ as possible, while in a Random Start the only special characteristics of a civ will be set by its randomized starting location: civs on a small island will be nudged toward SeaFaring or Ship Building, and so forth. This is dicey, because many civs on all of the proposed lists of civs to include simply didn't exist in any recognizable form in 4000BC, but it would provide an option for a starting definition for each Civ.
Another point in the Major/Minor debate: in 4000BC, when the game starts (supposedly; has there been any Thread discussion on alternative starting dates?) there would only be about 3 civs on the map with the ability to form cities: Egypt, Sumeria, the Indus (pre-Indian). Everybody else is still pre-agriculture, pre-city-building. Giving a CtP-style starting tech list that varies either historically or randomly could start civs as minor or major effectively, but leave the further development up to the progress of the game: a nomadic civ at the start could still grow by forming Tribes which wouldn't have the population of a city but could generate military units. It would either develop agriculture, settle down and start cities of its own, or conquer its nearest settled neighbor and take over their cities. Both patterns occured historically, and the 'conquest by outside barbarians' covers the start of most of the 'major' civs today: France, England, Germany, Russia - even China, are the results of successive waves of barbarian conquerors who eitherrestarted the civ or got absorbed by it.
Another comment on minor civs. In a way, most of the 'goodie huts' in CivII and CtP are Minor Civs: how else do you justify them providing you with a settler, tech advance, money, or military unit? In this, without the rigid definition in the new game, they are very similar to the Minor Races in BOF.
Personally, I think a combination of more adaptable Barbarians, who can trade, move, fight, do diplomacy, and starting definitions that vary among the starting civs, will give us the effect of Major and Minor Civs without explicitly labeling any of them as such.