Algonquin (Need another Native Civ)
American
Arab
Austrian
Aztec
Assyrian
Babylonian
Carthaginian
Celt
Chinese
Dutch
Egyptian
English
French
German
Greek
Hebrew (or Israeli)
Inca
Indian
Japanese
Javanese
Mali (Another African)
Mayan
Mongol
Persian
Portugese
Roman
Russian
Sioux
Spanish
Turk
Viking
Zulu

Teutons
Byzantines (if Romans are absent)
Minoans
Hitittes
Polynesians (?)

Also, at the beginning of the game, we should be able to choose which epoch to start in.. There should be one HUGE pool of civs and the program decides which civs should be included in which epoch..

For the male leader of the Indians, it should be Jawaharlal Nehru, not Mahatma Gandhi..

Gandhi was not a political leader.. Nehru was India's first Prime Minister and was PM for a long time..

Also, the city names for the Indians are all wrong.. Ganges is a river, Bengal and punjab are states, Karachi, Lahore and Dacca (Dhaka) are not in India..

Firaxis could mail me and I can send them an accurate list of Indian cities, in proper order of importance..

The units/techs and civs should all reflect this choice...
Perhaps there should be this HUGE database of about 50 civs, with leaders for all these epochs.. I also feel that the leaders should change with time.. It's funny negotiating with Lenin in 1500 BC.
Maybe the leaders could also change with different govt. types.. We could negotiate with Lenin and communist Russia, or Ivan and despotic Russia, and Yeltsin and democratic Russia.

Also, there should be a third term given to describe Civs, apart from just Russians and Russian, for example, there should also be a country name.. Then when we negotiate, we would negotiate with Russia, not the Russians. We could ally to fight with Russia, not the Russians. Similarly for the other civs..

PS. Russia was the first civ that came to minds, nothing special for choosing it...

But what do you'll think about the leaders changing with time and with governments?

- What do you see the influences of the leaders being?
- In what ways do we have control over what effect the leaders will have when they're in power?
- In what ways can we shape who might next rise to power?
- Are you thinking of linking leaders to civs or governments or neither?

A lot of questions, I know, but the topic is rather open at the moment.

But we could perhaps have leader personalities, but that might get a little complex.. Specially thinking about personalities for each leader for all civs!

And I think there should be about 20 leaders, like this:-

1. Ancient Despot
2. Ancient Monarch
3. Ancient Fundamentalist
4. Ancient Republican/Democrat
5. Medieval Despot
6. Medieval Monarch
7. Medieval Fundamentalist
8. Medieval Republican/Democrat
9. Industrial Dicatator
10. Industrial communist
11. Industrial Fundamentalist
12. Industrial Monarch
13. Industrial Republican/Democrat
14. Modern Dictator/Army General
15. Modern Communist
16. Modern Fundamentalist
17. Modern Republican
18. Modern Democrat
19. Future (?)

You'd have to limit the graphics to one picture to each leader to avoid using up memory. Anyway, if you did it with historical names, I probably wouldn't have heard of half of them. I could think of only about 6 Roman leaders off the top of my head.

But I think we get the message that leaders should change with time AND government..
And of course, the names should be historical..
And the leaders don't change for YOU..

PS. How do we get ideas (like this one) onto the EC3 list? Do we just rely on korn and Theben and co. reading it and liking it?

And Indians should be orange/dark green..

I think I figure out the leaders thing:-

1. Ancient Despot/Fundamentalist
2. Ancient Monarch
3. Ancient Republican/Democracy
4. Medieval Despot/Fundamentalist/Communist
5. Medieval Monarch
6. Medieval Republican/Democrat
7. Industrial Dictator
8. " Monarch
9. " Fundamentalist
10. " Communist
11. " Republican/Democrat
12. Modern Dictator/General
13. " Communist
14. " Fundamentalist
15. " Republican
16. " Democrat.
17. Future (?)

Not sure how you can have an ancient Democratic/Republican, leader. Or Medieval Communist, Democratic leaders.

IMO a good compromise would be 9 leaders per civ: 3 ancient, 3 medieval, 3 modern
but instead of being based on time period, it would be based on the order of the civ's leaders. Like for example the American's "ancient" leaders would include George Washinton, and their "medieval" leaders would include Abe Lincoln, while their modern leaders would include Kennedy etc.

Like the idea. But how would you split the three for each time period?

Possibility:
Ancient and Medieval like Shiva's
Modern-
1. Republic/Democracy
2. Communist/Dictator/Despot
3. Fundamentalist/Monarch

------------------
- Biddles

quote: Originally posted by Biddles on 04-08-2000 11:17 PM tniem: There are a few ancient Athenian leaders who were staunch democrats(republicans?), just do a little research and you'll be surprised to find that they all weren't trying to make themselves king.

Biddles-
Quite correct. I looked back at my posts and realize what you are referring to. I said that we could get rid of ancient democracy/republic, but of course Athens and Rome both had those in that time period (at least for a little while). Any way, when I originally wrote that I was thinking that time period would be considered Classics as Greece and Rome are normally seperated from the Ancient civs in history and English classes. But that would make even more leaders and certainly would be impractical.

quote: Originally posted by Sir Shiva on 04-04-2000 09:40 PM What I originally thought was that the changing leaders would be just superficial, to add a little more realism..

You mentioned this straight afterwards, but I still thought it was pretty general stuff:

quote: These leaders influence everything within that civilization, and represent the civs views at that time.

Fair enough if you want the leaders to do something. It's not all that bad an idea. But why don't you talk about how they'll actually affect the civs they're leading?

To say...

quote: Of course they would, that's the whole point.

...when it hasn't even been discussed or agreed uopn by anyone (that I can see, at least) came across as a little aggressive and a tad presumptuous.

But like I said, I would certainly like to have leaders changing with time to make it more historically accurate, and it might also help stop the later game getting boring with the same group of leaders all the time.

How they'd affect the civs they're leading, well basically they would become that civ's AI for the time they're in power.
They choose what should be built and all the decisions a human player might make.

Regarding the topic, I want to make it clear that I'm not against leaders. I'm just a little wary of the sort of arguments which will be created with using historical figures. I'm also still wondering what leaders will actually add from a game-play perspective.

I'll just add one more thing that perhaps needs to be considered. Tell me if I'm wrong, but at the moment I understand that emerging leaders will mirror the desires of the people. And the leader will shape the civ using the leader's attributes. Will the next leader then be much the same as the last one? What measures are going to be in place to ensure that leaders don't all become the same? What's going to stop us from going around in circles? What triggers are in place for a new leader? Should a new leader have to have significantly different attributes to the old one?

There's a few questions to be asked from a game-play perspective before we worry about choosing which leaders for which governments, and for which civs.

I hope I've made myself a little bit better understood. And I'm sorry for getting a little defensive. Shake?

Teutons AND Germans???

Many of the suggestions are very good, especially, I think, Minoans, Incas, Portuguese, Dutch, Koreans, Turks, Hebrews...

I think the Sioux add a neat flavour to the game, although it sometimes seems strange to have a civ that was neolithic 200 years ago... but why not?

What about the Goths? Huns? Kurgans? Bulgars? Why do civs have to start with a settler? Most civs started as nomads, who were hunters, and learned to kill efficiently - became barbarian hordes, conquered a more peaceful agrarian civ, then settled into the good life and began getting civilized. Why not have the choice of starting as a barbarian raider?

If the Poles get a civ, then I want one for Canada too! Seriously, we should have open source civs where a user can create their own.

I like the idea of little flags to identify the civs.

Shake.

On your questions:

quote: Originally posted by MidKnight Lament on 04-10-2000 08:57 AM Tell me if I'm wrong, but at the moment I understand that emerging leaders will mirror the desires of the people. And the leader will shape the civ using the leader's attributes.

Like I said earlier, it could, if done right, make the politics and diplomacy very interesting.

I agree with The Mad Viking, open source civs are a must. Although I'd also like it if Firaxis could include as many as they can, so that I won't have to go to the trouble of creating my own.
Btw, the Goths, Huns and Bulgars were included in civ2 as barbarian cities, if you ever looked in city.txt.

I would also like to see a whole host of minor civs with whom you could ally and maybee even embrace into your civ by peacefull means.

I would also like to see trade increase other civs attitude toward you.

1. We found Greenland.
2. We found America (after the indians )
3. We had the first elected head of state in the world.
4. We have the highest number of internet users in the world.
5. 2nd highest car ownership...

Do you mean the highest percentage of Internet users in your population? Iceland's population is 271,033 (1998 estimate).

There are no Icelandic cities in the Viking portfolio...

Nomads:
When you start the game, instead of settlers, you get nomads.
There are three types of nomads:Normal, Horseback, and Desert.

Normal nomads move at 1 movement point a turn,have an attack strength of 2 and defence of 1. At the end of each turn, they must be within two squares of a source of water. Otherwise they die. If they spend 5 consecutive turns adjacent to a source of water they produce another normal nomad. If they are on desert squares for the 5 turns they produce a desert nomad. And if they spend that last turn on a square containing horses, they produce horseback nomads.

Horseback nomads (these represent civs like the Mongols before Ganghis Khan) move at 3 movement points a turn, have an attack strength of 3, and a defence of 1. Apart from that, they are the same as normal nomads.

Desert nomads (these represent civs like the Aborigines, and tribes of the Sahara) have 1 movement point per turn, have an attack strength of 2, and a defence strength of 2. Unlike other nomads, they can last as long as they like away from water sources.

All nomads can build cities, but cities cannot build them, they can only build settlers.

A civ can stay nomadic for as long as they like, but since nomads have low attack and defence strenghts, it isn't worth it past the discovery of gunpowder.

Civs can also have a mixture of cities and nomads if they like.

DanielC, have you seen what you have done?

In contrast to the mobile-cities thing, I was thinking more along the lines of units, that produce new ones. They would be classified as the same as normal units, except maybe there would be some kind of indicator near the nomad's statistics as to how close the unit is to producing a new one.

Also, I thought the different types of nomad gave some disdinction to the different climates people live in.
Maybe we could put in a "civilized" nomad that could trade etc. like you are suggesting.