Minor Civs

T

TTG

Prince
Joined
Oct 25, 2000
Messages
328
Location
Ottawa, Ontario
Lately I've been playing the MOO2 clone "Birth of the Federation", which includes an interesting feature that could work well in Civilization 3: Minor races, or in this case Minor Civs.

Minor civs would have the same AI and nearly all of the same capabilities of a normal Civ, except they would not be interested in expansion. They would largely keep to themselves. In BotF, this is maintained by the fact that they are not allowed to create colonies outside of their home system. It would really add a lot of depth to the game because smaller nations that are historically important could be featured in Civilization. They wouldn't need to all be in every game, but you could include dozens of new nations like Israel, Canada, Poland, Australia, Holland, Vietnam, etc. In BotF, each Minor race has a special "wonder" that can only be built if you have that minor race on your side. This could work in Civ3 as well, but the idea is neat without it.

What do you think?
 
Hey!!!

A BOTF player! They are rare you know. Although me and 3 friends play about once a week.....anyway....

That's a pretty good feature of BOTF and it wouldn't be bad for Civ 3 but I thought I heard that there would be no minor civs in Civ 3??? Don't take it as God's word but I'm pretty sure that's what I heard.

Anyway....Would you like to play a game of BOTF this week??? Have you ever played MP before??? Anyway...PM me if you want to.

------------------
<IMG SRC="http://images.honesty.com/imagedata/h/207/85/32078598.gif" border=0> I AM CANADIAN! <IMG SRC="http://images.honesty.com/imagedata/h/207/85/32078598.gif" border=0>
CivFanatics Moderator and Tech Support
CornEmpire Owner/Operator
My Civ 2 Scenario Page.
 
There was another thread like this quite a while back where we talked about minor civs. <a href="http://forums.civfanatics.com/Forum7/HTML/000058.html"> CLICK HERE FOR FUN! FUN! FUN! </a>Is it the same thing, TTG?

Dammit, my HTML is forgotten! Uh, hold on...

IF YOU REGISTERED IN FEBRUARY, POST AFTER DREAD!!!

[This message has been edited by Cunobelin Of Hippo (edited July 03, 2001).]

[This message has been edited by Cunobelin Of Hippo (edited July 03, 2001).]
 
I like the idea, although the life expectacy of those smaller nations wouldn't last long at all.

THis other game you've mentioned..sounds interesting, can you tell me more. What platform is the game on?



------------------
"What counts is not necessarily the size of the dog in the fight -it's the the size of the fight in the dog."
- Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower
 
HAHAHAHA look at the order of our registrtion dates!

avatar.gif


 
Well in BotF, they do tend to survive because they are so useful strategically. If you convince them to join you with diplomacy or simply subjugate them (civ3: use cultural influence to overpower them, or just conquer them), then you get them along with their special advantages, which are quite handy, so it's a waste to destroy them. When they are on their own, they have certain advantages that allow them to do quite well. Just the fact that they only have one system to defend makes them pretty hard to beat. They spend centuries building all these defenses and lots of ships but they can't colonize so it's all just defense. They are hard to take, much harder than taking a system from another "empire". But they have other advantages as well -- depends on the race. Many have advanced technology (if they join you, you get the equipment but not the technology). Some are in fact very weak, but that's just the balance. And if they don't end up playing an important role in history, who cares? Most of these civs just got tossed around or run down in real history anyway. Beating up these weaker civs is a little more accurate than empire vs empire wars that occur in the civilization games. How many of those have happened in real life?

No, I have never played MP. I have only played a few games. My current game is on Normal and I am close to winning.

------------------
Civilization I Master of masters and webmaster of Civilization III Arsenal
 
I have heard a lot of talk about minor civs, however Firaxis hasn't released anything on the subject. They haven't updated their site since mid-May and haven't released much info since. Anyway, the question's still open.

I find it to be a good idea, as long as it's an option. Some people will go with nostalgia and play the old-fashioned Civ2 way. They are a good compromise with the people who want tons of civs and those who are concerned about RAM and time.

Of course the minor civs would be limited in options. I would like to see them have a maximum of five cities and maybe thirty units and shouldn't be able to research techs.

That way they don't grow too large or become too powerful as to rival any other civs (however it would be to your advantage if you could get them to declare war on your enemy).
 
Oh they would definitely be limited. They would only get ONE city in most cases, but never more than three.

Another great thing about it is a makes a convenient way for replacement civs to arrive. You know, when you kill one civ and another one appears so that there are still 7 in the game. Well if there were minor civs, one would just get "promoted" (whichever one was doing best).
smile.gif


------------------
Civilization I Master of masters and webmaster of Civilization III Arsenal
 
I was browsing Apolyton the other day and found a hosted site featuring the game, "Clash of Civilizations", programmed entirely in Java. It's focal point is an accurate representation of history, implementing complex gov't types, economic settings, plague, religion and culture, etc. IMO, with all the added complexities, it doesn't appear to be heading towards a great strategy game <IMG SRC="http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/frown.gif" border=0>

According to my friend, their latest demo has been in production for YEARS, and the release date shifted several times. Their latest demo, however, emphasizes one cool feature: "Cultures". Cultures have nothing to do with the game's social model, rather they are "pseudo-civs". Currently, though all they can do is raid (marauding tiles to steal $), you can engage in diplomacy with them, which affects how often they raid. Of course, since they each have small armies, you can cavalierly crush them <IMG SRC="http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/smile.gif" border=0>

Civ III, too, could execute this. Empires formed during the game that restrict themselves to at most defended three cities, whose science is entirely based upon its allegiances. Of course, the could become belligerent, raid, etc.


[This message has been edited by bvd (edited July 11, 2001).]
 
True, but the "Hut" idea is IMO very insipid. In synospis, a unit enters a tile inhabited by villagers (a "Goody Hut"), and one of the following occurs:
---

The unit's owner (Civilization) gains a size one city on that tile (advanced tribe).

A settler is given to the owner (wandering nomads).

The owner receives a random advance (scrolls of ancient wisdom).

The owner receives a random unit (mercenaries).

Barbarian units appear.

The player receives gold (metal deposits).

Nothing at all happens (village is abandoned).
---

The villages disappear quickly, as you want horseman to assimilate them ASAP. Other than an occasional tech, barbarians, and a small amount of gold, these "minor Civs" have little effect on the game. I'm with the TTG Guy; the map should be replete with Civs capable of attaining no more than three cities (unless, of course, they are needed to "replace" a vanquished civ). I also like the idea of distinct Barbarian hordes to maraud frontier cities.

(edited due to countless spelling errors)

[This message has been edited by bvd (edited July 11, 2001).]
 
I think u actually don't need minor civs.In a standard game, the weaker civs,economically,scientificly or military speaking "earn" the status of minor civs.don't u agree?
wink.gif

Sid Meister logging off...
 
Well yes and no. The thing about having minor civs that are forced to be minor (i.e. can't grow beyond 1 or 2 cities) is it makes it feasible to have a game with 30+ civs in a single game, but only 5 of them are "empires" that can expand and conquer. The minor civs would be controlled by simpler AI's and have simpler algorithms for when they get techs and stuff as well, so it wouldn't be much of a tax on system resources nor would it take a long time for these many civs to take their turns.

By forcing certain civs to be minor and others to be major, it would also keep a balance in the game. There would, in most cases be 7 world powers this way, and a variety of minor civs. In a regular game of civ with no minor civs I usually only see 2-3 world powers and 4-5 minor civs. Pretty dull if you ask me.
smile.gif
 
Originally posted by TTG:
Lately I've been playing the MOO2 clone "Birth of the Federation", which includes an interesting feature that could work well in Civilization 3: Minor races, or in this case Minor Civs.

Minor civs would have the same AI and nearly all of the same capabilities of a normal Civ, except they would not be interested in expansion. They would largely keep to themselves. In BotF, this is maintained by the fact that they are not allowed to create colonies outside of their home system. It would really add a lot of depth to the game because smaller nations that are historically important could be featured in Civilization. They wouldn't need to all be in every game, but you could include dozens of new nations like Israel, Canada, Poland, Australia, Holland, Vietnam, etc. In BotF, each Minor race has a special "wonder" that can only be built if you have that minor race on your side. This could work in Civ3 as well, but the idea is neat without it.

What do you think?
Click to expand...
Since when is Canada small?
wink.gif

 
You're right it certainly isn't.

Well perhaps each minor civ would have its own set of limitations that would keep it from being a major player. Canada would colonize beyond one city but not beyond it's own continent, and never build more than one military unit per city, never build nukes, and never declare war. So it would be big and weak. The point is not so much to make them small, but to make them insignificant compared to the major civs.

------------------
Civilization I Master of masters and webmaster of Civilization III Arsenal
<IMG SRC="http://www.strategyplanet.com/civilization3/images/ani_swordsman_thumb.gif" border=0>
 
Hey this thought just occured to me, its really cool.

The idea of the Hut, i think changing it around might be really interesting. Here's the plan; in civII when you discovered an advanced tribe it became a city of yours. Well here's where my idea fits in. How about the advanced tribes that you discover become the minor civs.

In this idea they could either represent the exploration by large nations and founding of new countries. Or of social unhappiness, where a group of people leave a country for one reason or another and start there own country. Or it could represent the possibilty of whatever nation descovering the tribe passing on there knowledge so that they come to your standard. If you don't understand my babling, let me give you an illustration.

The North and south American continents were very much settled by foriegn countries, or by religious groups like the pigrims, and later became there own nations soon after.

Or like Australia and africa, there were already people there with towns and villages but not advance enough to be important. But when Europeans came along and passed on there knowledge; cities like Cape town and Sydney were created.

Then like you said they would be like barbarian nations, never building more than one city. Also, perhaps they should have some kind of research modifier, so that they can keep pace with major civs. (you know like the option in the scenario editor).

------------------
"What counts is not necessarily the size of the dog in the fight - it's the the size of the fight in the dog."
- Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower
 
I love the idea of minor civs under the following conditions:

1: They factor significantly in the strategy of the game. i.e. used as a buffer against enemy empires.

2: They don't completely hinder expansion by settling. I think the number of minor civs should be proportional to land mass that is settlable.

3: They have reasonable intelligence. They must be smarter than the pathetic barbarians of I and II.

I think the idea of having the world's strongest minor civ being promoted to "expansionistic" when an empire gets wiped out is fantastic.

I like the idea of historical minor civs such as North American native tribes and the Hittites of Asia minor better than using modern-day countries.

Historically, there have been many empires who expanded by taking over minor civs rather than taking out the reigning empire of the time.

If this idea isn't incorporated into Civ III we could always lobby for it in the inevitable Civ IV.
 
I don't hink there will be a civIV, I'm not agianst the idea at all. It's just that it seems wishful thinking. I hope I can Play the game FOREVER.

------------------
"What counts is not necessarily the size of the dog in the fight - it's the the size of the fight in the dog."
- Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower
 
You know, I'm sure this thing is discussed somewhere in the Suggestion & Ideas forum. I don't know in which thread but it might be wise to take a look at that one.

------------------
And I'm proud to say: 'Ich bin ein Civfanatics Official Reviewer!'
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Fergei
[C3C] Late game tech rate confusion
Replies
11
Views
698
Fergei
Fergei
P
Any plans for new minor civs?
Replies
6
Views
519
Walter Hawkwood
Walter Hawkwood
arik24
[C3C] why are there no new civs for civ 3 that you can download
Replies
4
Views
981
WildWeazel
WildWeazel
K
Upgrade to 1.29f FAILED
Replies
7
Views
534
Aloysius 02
A
M
This game is too addictive. I need to make it shorter
2 3
Replies
42
Views
2K
Fergei
Fergei
Back
Top Bottom