|
Author
|
|
Topic: Neutral Civs |  |
|
Diablo, Bro. of Mephisto
Warlord
Salt Lake City, USA
Oct 2000
|
 |
posted December 15, 2000 19:29
   | 
 |
 |  |
Besides regular, and mini civs, there should also be neutral civs. They would be a combination of a mini civ, and the regular civs. They would not expand alot, limited to at most 10 cities for each 'neutral civ'. They would have there own units, and pretty much stay out of the way of the rest of the world. They usually would not talk to other civs, unless those civs came to them first. I am guessing why many of you want to know why add these 'neutral civs', because of the reason that many do not want to play with 64 civs at a time. lets say, 32 regular civs can be played in a game, then, include 20 mini-civs. then add on 12 neutral civs. This way you are technecly only playing with 32 civs at a time, while for us guys that like to play a looooong game, with 64+ civs. With this idea it will benifet both sides of conflict.p.s. Of course those that want to only play with 7-32 civs can just choose that many. |
Tical_2000
Warlord
Oct 2000
|
|
posted December 15, 2000 19:33
|
|
| |
Uh...That's only if Firaxis includes 64 civs in Civ3. BTW, for all you people out there who have their hearts set on a gazillion civs (64+), I'm sorry but I really think you're going to be dissapointed. That many civilizations in one game is just insane. |
DarkCloud
King
of Clouds
Jul 2000
|
|
posted December 15, 2000 19:42
 |
|
| |
Neutral Civs- a bit of overkill, but here are my thoughts.They should have limited science development; they should only develop at 1/2 the rate of the average major civ development rate for that game. They can have units; but their units will rarely attack. |
Biddles
Prince
Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
Mar 99
|
|
posted December 15, 2000 20:49
 |
|
| |
How can a civ be neutral. If you attack it then you're at war, someone might intervene on their side (to stop your expansion) so they are theoretically allied. What you're saying is you want a heap of pacifist civs in the game that don't grow too much and have Xenophobic tendancies?------------------
- Biddles "Now that our life-support systems are utilising the new Windows 2027 OS, we don't have to worry about anythi......."
Mars Colonizer Mission |
DrFell
Chieftain
England
Sep 2000
|
|
posted December 15, 2000 21:58
|
|
| |
i agree 100 civs in a game is insane!!!! how do you keep track of them all????????? i think that many civs would really ruin the game. id prefer a maximum of 24 of 15 or something. definitely more than 7, but can you imagine a list of 64 civs? plus theyd have to take some wonders out of the game, ie marco polos and great library, because theyd offer far too many advantages to the ONE civ that gets them.i think 'neutral civs' is a good idea tho, but i think theyd be too similar to 'minor civs'
[This message has been edited by DrFell (edited December 15, 2000).] |
Grrr
Chieftain
New Zealand
Dec 2000
|
 |
posted December 15, 2000 22:30
|
|
| |
I don't think 100 civs is insane at all. I love the idea, but there is one prerequisite, and that is to have a HUGE map, which will allow all major civs to develop to the size of an Expansionist CIV II civ, all minor civs to the size of a normal CIV II civ.
I think DIABLO's idea of Neutral Civs is good, and should be implemented, but is'nt Neutral more of a personality trait than a style.Also at the startup of the game there should be a dialog box: Minor Civs 1-50
Neutral Civs 1-50
Major Civs 1-100 This would allow a FANATIC like me to play with up to 200 civs. |
Diablo, Bro. of Mephisto
Warlord
Salt Lake City, USA
Oct 2000
|
|
posted December 16, 2000 17:04
|
|
| |
aahh, Tical, if you read one of the voting comments on how many civs people want in civ3, I can bet you that 80% of everyone that has voted (wich is I believe about 300, including me) for 32+. I am not totally for 64+ civs, but I would like at least 30 to choose from, and at least 16 to play with at a time. p.s. this thread was a complete suggestion, so dont jump on me. also, if there were to be 64+ civs in a game, then there is but one solution to any crowding: well, for one not all 64+ civs would be regular size, at least 1/4 (which is 21)of them would be minor civs. And also, if you have a HHHUUUGGEE map (which I would really like), then you dont have to worry about it. oh, forgot something, and about cutting out a couple wonders, for example, The Great Library, just ajust it, so that instead of getting a new tech from 2 civs, you get it from 5-10. My personall preference would be to have 64 civs to choose from, and 32 max to play with on one map.
[This message has been edited by Diablo, Bro. of Mephisto (edited December 16, 2000).] |
Ralf
Warlord
Sweden
Mar 2000
|
|
posted December 16, 2000 17:32
|
|
| |
For lots of reasons i dont want to repeat here, Firaxis is most likely to implement max six or seven (yes 6 or 7) simultaneously playing AI-civs, in Civ-3. Adding more, would be AI-suicide. Especially given the complexity of all the other updated and added AI-burdening features and parameters in the game. You guys might as well try to get used to the idea!
[This message has been edited by Ralf (edited December 16, 2000).] |
Tical_2000
Warlord
Oct 2000
|
|
posted December 16, 2000 19:09
|
|
| |
No. No no no no NO!!! Trust me! If you've ever trusted me on anything, trust me on this: YOU DO NOT WANT 100-200 Civs in a game! Has anyone here ever heard of a little something called balance?! If you want 100 civs, you're gonna need a huge map! If you get a huge map, its gonna take 20-30 turns to circumnavigate the world (that's about..hmmm..oh something like 30-1000 years in civ). Or how about tens of thousands of units waltzing around the world every single turn? This would make the game tedious and totally unbalanced. An although I'm not Firaxis, I can certainly give my personal guarantee there will NOT be 64 civs in Civ3. Like I said, just trust me. |
Adm.Naismith
Prince
Milano - Italy
Oct 1999
|
|
posted December 18, 2000 11:52
|
|
| |
Please gentlemen, don't jump again on the wagon of "how many Civ do you like in Civ 3?".It's not going anywhere, it's not useful to help Firaxis to really make a playable, balanced, better game. Go on.  Back on Neutral Civ: aren't they more or less on the same line of Minor Civ with peaceful attitude? IMO, they must have limits only as a way to reduce the overload of AI (not expansionism, defense war only, trade bonus, research bonus - not reduced). This because they must act as "cushion" between empire, making them more worthy to maintain and pact that crush and absorbe into a CIV 2 like empire. They can add a focus to Huts (diplomacy added to usual research, trade and military free gift), and a realistic H.Q. to barbarian/pirate action (they are regular troops of Minor Civ, later are terrorist sustained from them for political reason). They must rely more on hidden act of force or on a peaceful attitude to balance the feel for a military annexion by main Civ. They will use neutral status as a shield to survive, not necessary as a limit. ------------------
Admiral Naismith AKA mcostant |
Deity Dude
Chieftain
Aug 2000
|
|
posted December 18, 2000 12:41
|
|
| |
64 civs? How would you distinguish them. I can't imagine 64 different colors and being able to keep track of them all. (aborigines are red, americans are light red, anglo saxons are lighter red etc.) I would go crazy. Maybe 16. As far as neutral, Whats there purpose? Like someone else said, if you attack them they're not neutral and unless you're building a spaceship and they're not in your way, you will attack them. As far as minor vs major civs, isn't that a subjective opinion on how well a civ is doing. It seems when I play civ 2 that 2 or 3 of the civs never make it very far, have about 4 or 5 cities sometimes less and are pretty minor. If by minor youmean you want to give them some sort of structural disadvantage, all this would do is make it easier to beat the AI. In my opinion the AI is already easy enough to beat. | |
Apolyton Civilization Site Forums
