CIVILIZATIONS (ver2.1): hosted by LordStone1

[Ekmek]

I have to agree with my fellow historian Diodorus.

I like his civ creation idea (but to add to it instead of shield use flags or standards and have their size be a lot larger than in civ2 so you can add some nice details).

I agree with his barbarian idea, but even the barbarians should be more than one type of barbarian (the reason for barbarian migrations was actually fighting among barbarians, or so it is hypothesized). And they should rely a lot on the way nomadic economies worked (atleast in east asia) by raids or hiring themselves out as mercenaries or (like Ancient Rome) try to join your empire but settling in the borders, but causing social turmoil (an eventually setting up feudal states supposedly modeled on Rome). In all barbarians, were only barbaric because that is the way the Romans (and before them the Greeks) saw them because they had a different culture. The barbarians were a nomadic civilization not an agrarian/city based one like Rome/Greece.

------------------
"All great things must first wear terrifying and monstrous masks in order to inscribe themselves on the hearts of humanity."
- Nietzche

[FinnishGuy]

mhistbuff, E, Diodorus:

Great ideas about barbarians and split-off civs!

Hmmm, perhaps if a city has much unhappiness, there is a chance that part of the city's population will leave and found a new colony far away from your homeland cities. The whole process would be automated, outside player's control (except modifying unhappiness of course). There could be a certain "Colonization" technology that must be first researched (or maybe finding a new unsettled continent could enable it). The distant colony would still be part of your civilization. It would produce loads of money (colonial trade), but would also have high unhappiness (a representative government could reduce/eliminate the extra unhappiness). If a colony falls to disorder even for one turn, there's a considerable chance it will declare independence and other nearby colonies might then join it to found a new civilization (maybe a 20-30 turn period before this is allowed). Some later technology ("Nation State"? Industrialization?) could then end the colonial era, i.e. no more colony formation allowed and remaining colonies join your civ as normal cities.

Also there should be real barbarian hordes in the game. I mean REAL hordes that are a threat even to a well establisehd and defended civ. Civ2's barbarians are just a nuisance at best/worst even if you select the max barbarian level.

BTW, the original meaning of the word "barbarian" is "a person who does not speak Greek".

[Ekmek]

Finnishguy,

I like the colonization idea, having people flee like immigrants would be cool (if anything have the unhappy people after 2 or 3 turns produce a "barbarian" settler, that the barbarian AI knows how to use) then they can settle elsewhere or add to another civilization city's population.

I think if you set up a colon, colonial trade should represent Mercantilism and colonial economies (where raw resources were exported to the mother country and processed then sold back to the colonials) trade should represent resources and be ependable like Age of Empires. There should be atleast two types of trading commodities, resources (like wood, food, stone, bronze/iron, uranium, etc stuff to make units) and then commercial/luxury goods (like silk, wool, etc stuff you sell for profit).

------------------
"All great things must first wear terrifying and monstrous masks in order to inscribe themselves on the hearts of humanity."
- Nietzche

[Diodorus Sicilus]

Sorry about the double post, everyone - sometimes even my Magniloquent, Technologically Godlike Macintosh goes wormy on me...
Variety in Barbarians comes both from giving them a range of attitudes and interactions (trade, info exchange, etc) but also some Diplomatic exchange as well. This, I freely admit, is stolen wholesame from BoF's Minor Races gig, but is also another historical goodie: you can buy off barbarians into not attacking you, joining you, attacking someone else, etc. Trading a lot with them would make them like you more (or, occasionally, lust after what you've got and raid you if you don't keep some military force around to Overawe the Natives).
Each Barbarian group could be given a name/title in the game just as other civs are. Just to show off a little, here's a list of 'barbarians' from the Middle East - Europe area through about 1450AD that the computer could 'cull from' for Barbarian Names:
Ideally, they’d be named as tribes or groups: names include (3000BC through 1450AD):
Guti, Kassites, Amorites, Cimmerians, Ligurians, Hurrians, Thracians, Illyrians, Phrygians, Sakae,, Scythians, Nubians, Sarmatians, Numidians, Bactrians, Parthians, Yue-Chi, Hsung-Nu, Alans, Roxoloni, Surens, Kushans, Visigoths, Ostrogoths, Vandals, Gepids, Marcomanni, Franks, Burgundians, Bavaroi, Alemanni, Jutes, Angles, Saxons, Avars, Bulgars, Khazaks, Patzinals, Magyars, Ghuzz, Seljuks, Cumans, Sarbadars, Uzbeks, Circassians.
Note that a heck of a lot of these contributed to building what, in the game, are civilizations: Franks into French, Angles and Saxons into English, etc...

[Jon Miller]

hello all

I agree to what you are saying about barbarrians and think that there should be much more options to deal with them, including hiring them as mercenaries. In fact you can read my ideas (I don't need to repeat do I) that I posted like a week ago in the radical thread (I think, it may have been the other thread)

hopefully barbarrians will be much different in CIV3

I actually have had the idea for more nomadic civs, it could be workable with the concept of pop going into forming military units and I may have written a little about it in one of those previous posts, anyway cities could be remade by units coming together making movable, nomadic population

Jon Miller

[Zakalwe]

This barbarian-minor civ thing is getting very interesting.

One suggestion: When a barbarian force occupies a civilisation's (capital) city, maybe it could result in a new civilisation based on the original, but different in some aspects (Social Engineering etc.)

Here's an example: A fragmented civ, based on city-states is conquered by barbarians from the north, which then merges with the civ and goes on to conquer half of the known world in a few turns. Then the new empire collapses and splits into several successor states. Or is this too unhistorical?

About civs splitting: I think that in the early part of the game this could be tied to lines of communication, and military threat from other civilisations. If a city is far away and nearer to other civs than your own, it might either join the other civ (if you don't have enough military presence nearby), or decide to have a go at it alone (e.g. Palmyra in late 3rd century)

Later, Nationalism should really open the can of worms. In my opinion, it would have to be a 'gateway' tech for many other advances, such as consription (levee en masse), but also carry a heavy burden. All those cities your civ captured during the last few centuries should be much harder to control, and the chances of them slipping off to form their own states should be increased.

Zakalwe

------------------
"Ambitions that fall sort of their aim have all along helped produce excellent histories" - Ernst Breisach, Historiography

[LordStone1]

I'll be gone for 2 weeks now, so have fun!

[FinnishGuy]

I agree with the comment about Nationalism being a gateway tech.

BTW, I proposed "the Great Revolution" WoW in WONDERS thread (civs can't switch to modern republic/democracy before it has been built, gives half military unit costs for 20 turns to the civ that builds it, ...). It could well be linked to Nationalism tech advance.

But I don't think a city you conquered centuries ago could decide to break off after you discover Nationalism. Those people more probably feel they are a part of your nation after so many years of cultural and ideological influence. But perhaps a city conquered less than 100 years ago could try to split off.

[Zakalwe]

Finnishguy,

The "Great Revolution" wonder sounds like a good idea. Combined with nationalism, it would be a sort of a turning point in the game - ushering in the new era of nation-states and increased unrest.

I do disagree on the 100 year limit for cities (nations) splitting from your civ as a result of nationalism. Many of the countries, brought about by the rise of nationalism had been parts of empires for hundreds of years. Examples include Ireland and the Balkan states.

Zakalwe

------------------
"Ambitions that fall sort of their aim have all along helped produce excellent histories" - Ernst Breisach, Historiography

[FinnishGuy]

Zakalwe,

(100 year limit) Hmmm... OK... But I still think at least the probability to split off should decrease the longer you have owned the conquered city.

What if secession would be triggered by the city's original civilization discovering Nationalism, not by you? It's about _their_ nationalistic identity after all. OK, there's a problem if you have taken over an entire enemy civilization (so how could they research Nationalism). Perhaps there could be a lesser effect even by your own nationalism.

I took the liberty of suggesting "Nationalism" advance in the TECHNOLOGY thread. Of course I gave you credit there, Zakalwe.
<font size=1 face=Arial color=444444>[This message has been edited by FinnishGuy (edited July 14, 1999).]</font>

[mhistbuff]

I like the idea of nationalism and it affecting conquered cities. However, the discovery of nationalism in your civ should have an affect as well as the discovery by the civ the cities once belonged to. Nationalism in your civ would turn your subject against foreigners in you civ, including those in captured cities, perhaps resulting in racist acts of terrorism (lynchings and stuff), which cause unrest or even the mass migration of inhabitants from those cities.

[Mo]

Nationalism should also reduce the cost of infantry units. This bonus should increase if one or more of your cities are under attack since the people will be more willing to die for there country.

[Giant Squid]

I think Civs should be "related". For example, if the British were to schism, it might make, say, the Chinese. Wouldn't it be better if it created the Americans? Here's my idea...

1.Aztecs-Teotihuacans-Olmec
2.Inca-Tiahuacanos-Moche
3.English-Americans-Canadians
4.Russians-Polish-Mongols
5.Greeks-Romans-Minoans
6.Egyptians-Assyrians-Babylonians
7.French-German-Spanish
8.Sioux-Iroqoius-Navaho
9.Chinese-Japanese-Korean
10.Indians-Siamese-Khmer

All tribes in a set should have similar (but not the same) colors. For example, the Frech could be sky-blue, the Germans ocean-blue, and the Spanish dark blue. Only one of each set would be in each game (meaning, of course, a possible 10-civ game), and thus if you play on the Earth map, it won't be TOO crowded up in Europe... When a civ schisms, or rebels in any other new way FIRAXIS decides on, it will go to another civ in its group.

[Harel]

I don't know if everyone suggested it allredy, but I would like to suggest a new civ:
The Mahika. The Mahika was the civ de-facto when Kortez invaded south-america. It was a consertive-thinking empire that derives from the remains of the Aztec, and used most of thier religoun espects and technology.

[Iceman88888888]

This idea will mean having a extreamly large map but hay, how hard can that be?

Have about 7- Super Powers- These are the movers and shakers of the world, These civs are very powerfull and respected
Have 20-30 Major Powers- All the other 1st world countrys, these powers are still important but not has much as the super powers.
Then Have 70-80 Minor Civs, Like 2nd and 3rd world countrys which have 1-2 and at the max 4 citys. These countrys are unimportant and are affiliated (What a cool word, sooo long [JK] ) with the super/major powers around them which have similar Political views etc.
Countrys can be constantly skipping between super, major and minor and may even be changing names.
Like Rome- Went from Minor Power during the time of Alex the Great, Went to major around 275bc when alex's kingdom split into Pltomec Empire, Secuild Empire, Greece and Macedonia and latter became a super power when it over took alot of the mediteranian.
I might post later about this if its a good idea