O.K. now pound me with examples about cultures that were wiped out and never grew to greatness.

But there should be:

- An AI that knows how powerful it is.

- Several more civs.

- The ability for a small civ to rise to greatness in just a few hundred years, and the ability for a large one to collaps into obscurity in the amount of time.

Small civs will add flavor to the game. They are each an individual ***resorces*** to be exploited. After all, that seems to be what civ2 is about, and thus what civ3 will be.

Has anyone ever played Imperialism2? I would like to see small civs like those. You can exploit them peacefully, or you can kick them around. However, I would like to see small civs with attitudes- if you kick them, they should try and kick you back!

I have never played Imperialism 1 or 2 but I would think that if a "minor civ" was under the yoke of a powerful civ than it would never be able to get out of that yoke until the controling civ had weakened and fell which would mean that for maybe for two thousand years a civ would be unable to "upgrade" itself. And how does a "minor civ" defend itself if it has restrictions on it. If we are to rewrite history then why should we have restrictions. In history there were no laws set up by all big civs on how to classify themselves and how to penalize their weaker counterparts. Are we saying that we need to further weaken weaklings so we can push them around?

I don't know whose version of "minor civ" you are refering to but my vision of Major/minor civ simulation only applies to "AI" not Human players.

As Joker has pointed out, AIs should be able to evaluate its own power then behave based on how powerful they are thus no more ridiculous diplomatic move of CivII can be made by the AIs.

Power should be always in relative term not the fixed numeric figure as you might fear. Even if you have 3~4 cities but those are the only cities in the World you are powerful indeed. You would be pathetic when you own 300 howies and others can field several thousands of them.

Current AI code can be divided like this;
Expansionistic
Aggressive
Perfectionist
Peaceful
etc.
no matter how powerful the AI controled civ is!

Woohoo! For that, you win 5 stars! Or is that 5 smiley's. . .

(Please don't ask me for link, is around here as a Sid post: do your homework )

Point two: it is possible that minor Civ will take place of goody Huts and Barbarians.

You don't find a hut anymore, to check and see what happen: you will find a bunch of town with some special advantage that you can find more useful as a trade partner and an ally that as a target for your next offensive. As in SMAC as find more useful to gain a faction Pact Brother (ally) than crush it.

Barbarians and Pirate can change to be regular troops by minor Civs: at least you will have a target for your vengeance!

------------------
"Freedom, Trade, Christantine!"

quote: What limitations? As I see it, there would be no limitations, except the ones that would also affect major civs. The minor civs, as far as I know, would not be 'handicapped', and if the circumstances were ripe, could rise to be major civs.

Then what will define the difference between major and minor civs?

Shogun, I was referring to the example by Tiberius not your's.

quote: According to Adm. Naismith Sid Meier said that the minor civ will just be a village with some special "resource".

Sid never said something like this. He only said that minor civs is an idea from the Apolyton List that will be in the game. So, the best you can do is to read the List to see how these minor civs are described there.

quote: According to Adm. Naismith Sid Meier said that the minor civ will just be a village with some special "resource".

Well, not.
Sorry if I didn't explained well. I explained my supposition about Sid declaration: "Minor Civ will be IN"

quote: Sid never said something like this. He only said that minor civs is an idea from the Apolyton List that will be in the game. So, the best you can do is to read the List to see how these minor civs are described there.

That's a good correction, and a proper suggestion, too.

quote: Originally posted by Tiberius on 11-23-2000 01:18 AM As for the Switzerland issue: I'm not saying that minor civs couldn't have any power: but maybe not every country/nation wants to become a big power, at least not military power. I can imagine a civ, which has only 3 or 4 cities and do not want to grab more territory, but instead they want to develope their infrastructure and economy, keeping their neutrality in wars, thus becoming a respected, rich country. This is what I wanted to say when I wrote "play Switzerland". Of course, the "minor civs" Firaxis is talking about could be something totally different from that.

BINGO!!!

I could not say that better.

Switzerland was (and is) a great place for money management, trade pacts and diplomatic affair.

Israel have a very strong army, well supported by USA technology and production (as it was by France about 30 years ago: the french Mirage fighter was largely used and enhanced by Israel). Anyone understand its role in middle east scenario, as the reason for the support it has from USA and others western nations.

This is probably the border between minor and major nations in CIV 3 terms: while major (as in "Civ 2" style) nations can raise and fall (they are main characters of the movie ), minor will be in game with a different scope, to act as "cushion" between main nations, to fill the gap the game AI left for technical limits.

While me too, at the moment of Sid announce, complained about the predefined limit of minor civ, now I'm more for a realistic approach: I'm trying to imagine how to put at work secondary characters, to make a better, great movie