posted April 14, 2001 06:11

Here it is a poll on Minor Civilizations.
[This message has been edited by vgriph (edited April 14, 2001).]

	posted April 14, 2001 09:27

Hey, have you created this application yourself? It's cool!

	posted April 14, 2001 09:36

Most definately! But don't we already know that they WILL be included?

Oops! Sorry, just read the Thread referencing the MC's...So that's the reason for this poll! Ok folks, I'm with ya now and I do agree - MC's should be included in Civ3!
[This message has been edited by Wittlich (edited April 14, 2001).]

	posted April 15, 2001 21:06

With that said, I really enjoyed the interaction between the MC's in Colonization and the great powers. But there needs to be some interaction other than only conquering/destruction of villages. In Colonization one could arm the minor tribe, trade goods with them, send missionaries to convert units to your civ or destroy villages. In turn, some of the MC's were fierce warriors who would attack if you angered them by stealing, converting, or desrtoying villages. If a slaver unit is included that might be another possible interaction with the MC's.

	posted April 17, 2001 16:04

I personally would like to see minor civs as like...neutral states, kinda like Switzerland during WWII.
[This message has been edited by Diablo, Bro. of Mephisto (edited April 17, 2001).]

	posted April 17, 2001 16:41

So now I ask, why does everyone see Minor Civs as a vital addition to Civ III?

	posted April 17, 2001 16:55

if not, then that would be like playing with a max of say 5 civs in civ II, but with maybe 3 "minor" civs too, to give you your 8 max. that would suck.

	posted April 17, 2001 17:29

quote: Originally posted by tniem on 04-17-2001 04:41 PM So now I ask, why does everyone see Minor Civs as a vital addition to Civ III?

Well, I've also been following this topic for some time now, but I must have seen different threads and articles from you, tniem, because I've got the strong impression that minor civs will be included - I believe Sid himself said that. And while nothing is set in concrete at this stage, Firaxis have also talked about their more advanced diplomacy model, and how things like cities breaking away from their former civ will be included.

Now if that's going to happen, and suddenly in the midst of the game you're going to get a separate civ popping up which is not a replacement for a major civ that has just 'died' (as in Civ2), then to me that would be one of the most logical ways in which minor civs would come into play. I.e., in addition to the 8 or 16 major civs that you start out with, there would be provision for a certain number of minor civs as well (another 16??), which could (1) occur randomly like the huts of Civ2 ('advanced tribes'), or (2) arise as a result of rebellions, secessions, etc. Sometimes cities revolting from their parent civ would immediately join another major civ.; sometimes they would become a minor civ on their own. They would therefore not necessarily be weak! They might include some of the largest, most well-defended cities of their former parent civ.

For me it's their potential role in rebellions & secessions from major civs that makes the inclusion of minor civs so crucial in Civ3. If there is no setup in the game for diplomatic negotiations with minor civs, then rebellions/secessions of groups of cities can only be handled in a rather primitive, unsatisfactory way - as in Civ1 (see the thread "The citizens of Sparta admire the prosperity of New York" in this forum). Sparta admires New York, and **pouf!** just like that it's left the Greeks and joined the Americans. Unrealistic and unsatisfactory: the last thing the Americans want is a small, under-defended city on their border with the Greeks! But they have no say in the matter. Whereas if Sparta, at least temporarily, becomes a minor civ when it breaks away with Greece, and negotiates with America, then there can be an intermediate period during which America can decide whether it actually wants Sparta or not. And Sparta might end up being reconquered by Greece, or might succeed in going it alone as a minor civ, or might in the end be annexed by America. It opens up so many more possibilities, as well as being a lot more realistic.
[This message has been edited by Ilkuul (edited April 17, 2001).]

	posted April 17, 2001 20:40

Couldn't'a put it better myself. I was just musing over this a few days ago, and figured all sorts of neat things which can be done with break-away civs, or perhaps a major civ which is split by civil war. In any case, I don't think it could be too difficult to allow plenty more civs in the game - heck, Europa Universalis (a game which we could....ahh...."borrow" ....a lot of good ideas from) has to have something like 2 dozen....