posted May 24, 1999 23:08                

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?

posted May 25, 1999 04:58                

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.

posted May 25, 1999 07:35                

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...

posted May 25, 1999 11:01                

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.

posted May 26, 1999 09:00                

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.

posted May 26, 1999 12:08             

I like the idea that a player would be able to pick special advantages/disadvantages if they wanted to. However, to make it balanced, how about this:

About 1000 years in (about 3000BC), once you've had a chance to explore around a bit, a screen will pop up and allow you to customize your civ. This would be realistic as the first goal was survival and development of the home city and distinctiveness came over time.

However, there would be a limit of two or three items that you could change and every advantage would have to be offset by a disadvantage or you could decide to do nothing. The offsetting disadvantages would avoid the computer having to make decisions on adv/disadvantages.

posted May 26, 1999 12:26                

I think that the best bet is just to learn by doing.

In other words, if you use a lot of boats, you get better at boating. Lots of farms: good at farming.

posted May 26, 1999 12:38             

Increased/Decreased:
- amount of food
- amount of shields required for units
- amount of shields required for city improvements
- amount of shields required for wonders
- movement rate
- attack factors
- defense factors
- happiness
- viewing range
- amount of science rate
- amount of money
- amount of luxuries (to deal with unhappiness, not the same as the unhappiness level)
- attitude towards your civilization by other civs
- terraforming
- random events (good and bad)

This system (in addition to the social engineering/government) would allow each player to customize their civ to either their preferred style of play or a variable style of play each time.

posted May 26, 1999 15:52                

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

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

-Henry Clay

posted May 26, 1999 18:35             

IMHO, we are all created equal. Then we spend 70+ years getting more and more specialized.

Most civilizations did not start out with an innate ability to fish or farm. Over time they became fishermen or farmers because of of the terrain they where in.

posted May 26, 1999 21:44                

Like, the computer would go, "Oh, that settler is in a piece of land, very small, surrounded by a big ocean. Let's give him Navigation" or something like that?

But doesn't Civ2 already give us that ability? There's a lot of seafaring technologies and such...it's easy to turn your civilization into like the British Empire and just as equally easy to change it into the Mongol Empire. (Sea, land, if you don't get it)

Others propose putting it in Social Engineering, like +1 for sea units..?

posted May 26, 1999 22:43                

Never know, you might just meet a tree hugging, peace loving Ganghis Kahn. =)

Or just do what SMAC did and make it an option in the rules before the game starts.

posted May 26, 1999 23:20                

I would also like to see an option where the leader graqphics are a .GIF file so when you make scenarios you can put scanned pictures or download pictures for leaders and see them when you do diplomacy.

posted May 26, 1999 23:40                

The idea of having minor advances that are always discovered by each civilisation seems to fit the current ideas - civs shouldn't start with inital abilities, because this seems an inherently racist idea, but people feel there should be something more concrete than just focus to differentiate the zulus from the vikings.

The advantage to minor techs is that they occur during the game, and only if that civilisation finds the stimulus to pursue them. (Amoungst the ideas in the tech forum is the notion that technology be linked to environmental and social factors - so you CAN'T discover seafaring when stuck in the middle of a desert). Secondly, the idea takes it's bonuses from a truly historical basis - the english aren't necessarily better archers than anyone else, but they did discover the longbow.

posted May 27, 1999 12:37                

E, I completely agree about the .GIF thing, so post it in the Graphics thread, too. It's important! It was way too hard in CTP...

Also, E, what do you mean by future agriculture? Do you mean that every time this civilization discovers future agriculture, the output increases 10%? I'm assuming that "future" techs can be discovered over and over again...

Trav, thanks for the clarification! You summed up a big issue very cleanly! Makes my job easier!

posted May 27, 1999 01:04                

A second list of technologies, distinct from the main tech tree in two ways: the player cannot research them directly; and each tech is a deadend addition to a tech on the main tree.

I quoted the longbow example before - I'll use it to illustrate the example below.

Minor discoveries are kind of the aftershocks of a discovery, representing the fact that some cultures took ideas to a higher level than others. When a major tech is researched, there is a small chance that the player will receive a minor tech addition to that tech in the time between the inital discovery and the next major discovery. For instance, you discover 'archery'. You get bows, and you can build an archery range addition to your barracks. These are the benefits of the major tech. Every culture can research them and build the resulting units/components/structures/addons/etc.

The player then starts researching the next tech - call it currency, say. The player then has a chance to discover the longbow minor tech at anytime between the discovery of archery and the discovery of currency. It's a random event, more than anything else.

The advantages of minor techs are:
1) Interest -- you don't get them every game.
2) Tradibility -- since you can't actively research all of them, you'll nearly always have something to trade, even with a superior culture.
3) Historical immersion -- they add an even greater depth to the historical aspects of Civ, by including important discoveries that don't make the main tech tree.
4) Less stagnation -- if it takes you 20 turns to research a tech, you have a very good chance of picking up the previous discovery's minor tech too.
5) Civ differentiation -- an option to automatically give minor techs to the civilisation that discovered them in real life - for instance, the english ALWAYS get the longbow minor tech when they discover archery, while other civs have only a small chance of discovering it.

By this means, you can create a unique aspect to each civilisation that doesn't influence game balance to any great extent, and doesn't imply that one race is superior to another in any area. You also avoid the problems with having a naval civ (viking) being unable to use their advantage because when landlocked. But the potential advantage is still there.

How this helps. It's an interesting idea, it covers a lot of bases, and it makes for a good way to make unique, historically accurate civs without creating massive balancing issues.

posted May 27, 1999 14:33                

quote:

---

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.

---

quote:

---

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.

---

If more than 40 or nations are included, this is a good point. I like the idea of having more historically important nations show up more often.

Civ had a better selection of nations than CTP as far as picking empires which actually had empires, but for the 47th time let's make sure we include the Arabs, okay? They did rule a good deal of the world and were the most advanced nation on earth for a couple hundred years. For selfish reasons, of course, I'd also like to see the Hebrews included as in CTP.

And let's not have one of the major American cities be "Newport Beach." Thank you.

quote:

---

3)Should the civilizations have special abilities?
4) Should each civilization have a personality?

---

I am in favor of the second, not the first, but either way this should be able to be turned off at the start of the game (as in SMAC where faction profiles can be randomized).

posted May 27, 1999 22:33                

36 civs sounds reasonable, provided this doesn't start repeating races more than twice (e.g Vikings, Swedes, and Nordic civs - I think that's a bit much - if you like scandiavia that much, you should create your own civs.)

posted May 27, 1999 22:34                

I have a few intersting ideas for the new Game. For the first I would like to say that I do enjoy the way that ,in Civ:CTP, you cna create new governments, not jsut customize the ones given to you. I feel that this is something which needs to be kept in Civ3.

Likewise, for the governments, I believe that it woudl bei nterstign to, isntead of jsut startign out in the Tyranny gov, if gave you an option. You could start as either a City State gov, or a Tribal gov. Each would have a few advantages and disadvantage,s and might control lthe way your tech tree goes from that point on.

I also feel that it would be a good idea to be able to build colonies, or convert conquered cities into colonies. these colnies would produce mroe trade, and more money, but would cost slightly more to defend, and would have a better chance of rebelling than other cities. When they did rebell they would take colonies near by and form a new government. In the case of conquered lands like India, a new Indian Nation would be created. In the case on non-conquered colonies they would form a brand new government, of a new name.

For personality, perhapse it woudl be intersting for each Male and Female leader to ahve slightly differant persoanlities. lets take the case of...Russia. If the male leader is Stalin, his persoanlity would be far diffreant than the female leader Cathrine the Great, and this should be shown, I believe.

Boarders are another thing that needs to be adressed. I think it makes sence that their purpose, and such, would be modified over time. In the early stages of the game if under, the hypothetical, Tribal government, you would have few, if any, boarders due to the tribal state. Now, if they developed into a Monarchy, and this was still in the beginning of the game, they boarders would be lose, and forts kept along them would be needed to a greater extent. However crossing one would cause diplomatic relations to go into affect. later in the game it would be even mroe extreme once things such governments and Fascism went into affect, or so.

For the civlizations actually represented in the game, I think that we need to stray as far from the Civ:CTP way of having Haiti and Rome standing next to one another. Now, I do nto midn the inclusion of the Scots and Irish in the game, however, but only if the Celts are not done proporly, as they were done in Civ2, with the Celtic Capital beign the Capital of Wales, created in the later part of this millenium. I bleieve that a proper list of civilizations MUST include:

Romans, Byzantines, Arabs, Persians, Aztecs(or Mexicans), Inca, Russian, Polish, German, Chinese, Germans, English, Irish, Scotish, Celts, Turks(Ottoman), Norse, Hellens, Indians, Egyptians, French, Americans, Canadians, Australians, Etheopians, Zulu, Hungarians(or Austo-Hungarians), and others.

For thatm atter I bleive that civilization names should change through the differant ages. When you enter a certian year you should be able to change the name of your civilization to, eithe,r one that was pre-chossen, or give you theo pinion of taking an ew one. In such a way the Franks, after reaching the proper age, could becoem the French, the Magyars could becoem Hungarian, and the Slavs could become the Serbs, Bulgarians, Russians and so forth. Or, if you prefer, the Franks could become, if in your mind they had a lot of contact with the English, the Franklanders or something.

posted May 28, 1999 13:36                

3)Should the civilizations have special abilities?
I would like to see a civilizations abilities customizable to an extend the same way you can customize Social Engineering settings Alpha Centauri. Have a few major areas, like Seafaring, Agriculture, Industry
etc. and maybe a few minor specific areas, like Archery, Horsemanship, Gunnery, Naval Gunnery, Naval Construction, and you'd have a value you can put for each... like POOR,GOOD,AVE,EXCELL, and you'd only have so many "points" to put in total for all areas.

posted May 31, 1999 16:48                

I asked people at the BOTF (Birth of the Federation) forum @ Sidgames.com about how the minor civ thing worked out in the game. Here's fluffy's response.

quote:

---

Minor races are probably the best new feature in BOTF - really the only major new idea.

In general, a minor race has one "special" building that it can contribute. The special building does something like improve research in a particular area, increase morale, improve that planet's industry, or something.

The minor races, when independent, function basically as miniature empires. They never colonize or invade other planets, but they can maintain their own military forces. Each minor race has its own technology level - some of the technology levels are extremely high and better than anything you might build your own for most of the game, and some are barely out of the stone age.

You can either conquer a minor race, or convince them to join you, or leave them independent and trade with them, etc. You can even ally with them. Different minor races react differently to the various major empires. Some like everybody (there's one that immediately joins you the minute you encounter them) whereas some are picky about who their friends are.

If you end up owning a minor race (either by them voluntarily becoming a member of your empire, or by military conquest) you get whatever's on their planet when they join, and then their planet acts like a member of your empire. If they are low tech you can upgrade them, and if they are high tech they will soon be a rather important member of your empire. :}

Minor races that voluntarily became members can voluntarily become un-members again, but that doesn't happen too often. If you conquer them, on the other hand, they will riot and sabotage things and generally carry on; but this is controllable. Empires have different abilities with respect to minor races- the Federation has a great advantage in persuasion, allowing minor races to more easily join, whereas the Cardassians are very efficient at keeping the slaves under control. Klingons aren't particularly good at either of those, but they fight so well that taking over minor races is much easier. And the Ferengi can make so much money trading with them that letting them be independent is almost as good as getting them to join.

---

posted June 01, 1999 14:22                

Gauls
German
Minoun
Babylonions
Persian
Hebrew
Zulu
Egyptians
Pheonicans
Byzants
Vikyings
British
Chinese
Japanise
Aborjians
Indian
Aztec
Maia
Inca
Russians
Monguls

posted June 01, 1999 14:48                

There is a major problem, though.. how many Vikings do you know today? How about Minoans?

If you look around today, about half of the civs in the list are around in one form or another. But is would also be wrong to dismiss America. They are not a "civilization" but none the less, they are a superpower. Perhaps THE superpower...

The American were originally British, which is on your list. Obviously, having them as a permanant civilization is inaccurate, but having only the old civs is also inaccurate. Somehow, the ebb and flow of civs over time must be represented. Civs just don't last thousands of years, they die, split, merge, and reform.

posted June 01, 1999 15:02                

There shouldn't be a civ called "Vikings".
No tribe called themselves "vikings" - a viking was any Danish, Swedish or Norwegian sailor in the 9th and 10th centuries.

posted June 01, 1999 15:12                

Maia
Gauls
German
Mongul
Egyptains
Hebrew
Persian
Pheonican
Minoun
Zulu
Aborjians
Babylonian