|
Author
|
|
Topic: 2000th Idea! |  |
|
DarkCloud
King
of Clouds
Jul 2000
|
 |
posted December 13, 2000 15:31
    | 
 |
 |  |
Minor Tribes-
They will be age specific
-
B.C. ages
1. ??
2. Nubians
1-1000 AD
1001-1500 AD
-Tartars
-Magyars
-Dutch
-Portugese
1501-2000 AD
1. Canadians
2. Australians
3. New Zealanders |
Diablo, Bro. of Mephisto
Warlord
Salt Lake City, USA
Oct 2000
|
 |
posted December 13, 2000 15:38
|
|
| |
I like this list, but not all of these should be "minor" civs, like the Canadians, they should be a regular civ. p.s. why have you all of a sudden posted like 6 different threads??  |
Ribannah
Warlord
Castle Gobs, Enroth
Aug 2000
|
 |
posted December 13, 2000 16:37
|
|
| |
... and after 1500 the Dutch became a Major Tribe.------------------
If you have no feet, don't walk on fire |
Tical_2000
Warlord
Oct 2000
|
|
posted December 14, 2000 14:27
|
|
| |
To be frank, I dislike this list. There shouldn't be 'written in stone' civs that are always minor. There should just be a list of civs and random civs are picked each game to be minor. And for some reason I don't like playing against these ancient civs like the Mayans and Etruscans and stuff like that. I'm not sure why but I'd much rather play civs that I know of and still exist today. |
Diablo, Bro. of Mephisto
Warlord
Salt Lake City, USA
Oct 2000
|
|
posted December 14, 2000 15:02
|
|
| |
I agree with Tical on the fact that I do not like playing ancient civs. Although there might be a solution. When a certain date comes up (i.e. 1500 AD, 500 BC, etc)that ancient civ turns into a modern civ, for example, around 400 AD the Romans should change into the Italians. or the Celts, into Irish. etc. |
Deity Dude
Chieftain
Aug 2000
|
|
posted December 14, 2000 15:29
|
|
| |
I'd have to think about that idea. First, the Roman Empire didn't become the Italians - their civ/empire fell and was replaced by numerous minor and major civs that technically were probably part Roman and part barbarian. And the Celts didn't become the Irish, their civ fell and there descendants intermarried with locals and became numerous tribes. Having said that, that isn't my biggest problem with your suggestion. IMHO one of the things the game is about is possible alternate outcomes based on gameplay and randomness (i.e. if I'm a germanic civ, I don't want to know that all i have to do is wait out the Romans to some date and they'll disappear or become Italians. In fact maybe my inaction should cause them to grow stronger and last longer than they actually did. |
DarkCloud
King
of Clouds
Jul 2000
|
|
posted December 14, 2000 20:36
|
|
| |
I have posted so many threads so quickly because I had them stored up in the last
month so I could post the 2000th idea thread in the year 2000. |
Tiberius
Warlord
& Tradelord
Jan 2000
|
 |
posted December 15, 2000 08:51
|
|
| |
I don't like the idea that some civs should be always minor while others always major. I think the key is a good implementation of the Rise and Fall of Empires idea. After a certain advance (nationalism for example) there should be much harder to maintain big empires, and if such a huge civ collapses, a number of smaller countries should appear, some of them expansionist, but others peaceful, civilized nations, with only a few cities and with no desire to grab more land. I see these (randomly chosen) nations as minor civs. For example, if the austrian empire collapses, some of the newly borned nations (austrians, hungarians, slovaks, croatians, etc) could become major, while others minor civs, on a random bases. Same with the british empire: english, americans, canadians, australians, etc.
This idea could have funny consequencies, too: imagine the americans as a small civ, beging the powerful Louxembourg to let them in the NATO! |
beyowulf
Chieftain
US
Feb 2000
|
|
posted December 15, 2000 13:47
|
|
| |
I would also like playing as a 'minor civ'. No restrictions on which nation a player character can choose. If I want to start play as Luxembourg. Luxembourgers? Or if I want to start as the Magyars, I should have the option. |
DrFell
Chieftain
England
Sep 2000
|
 |
posted December 15, 2000 22:11
|
|
| |
i think minor civs should 'develop' into major civs if the right conditions exist. for example, if they discover navigation, sail over to the new world and find it uninhabited, surely they wouldnt leave it alone? or if theyre being threatened by a larger civ they should try and build up their armies, etc. and send them against the major civ. i dont know how minor civs could be worked into the game thought, how would you stop their expansion?plus i dont know whats wrong with you people who dont like playin ancient civs!!!! i think its just as silly to have the 'americans' or 'english' appear in 4000 BC! and there are virtually no civs that remained the same over 6000 years (another problem i have with civ  ). |
Apolyton Civilization Site Forums
