Minor nations

[Ninjatrey]

I was thinking if there could be somthing like barbarians but based on countries not tribes.

 

[mtu]

Sounds pretty cool.

Something like "Minor Races" in Star Trek: Birth of the Federation. You could make them join you diplomatically and profit from their uniqueness.

 

[smjjames]

theres something like that in GalcivII, but I'm not sure how they'd implement this in Civ4 without some major reprogramming.

in a scenario its easy (I think anyway) to set up a few and make them minor civs or something, but its not the same thing in a typical game.

 

[cfkane]

Well, they could try it, although I don't think it will go through, and not because of programming problems.

The problem with having "minor" nations is that a lot of actual nations could be offended.

Lets say that the nations used as "minor" nations would include people like the Cherokee, the Dutch, the Aboriginies, the Polish, etc. Nations who have played major roles on the global stage, but have never been directors of international policy in the same way that the original, playable nations have.

Don't you think that the Republic of Poland, the Kingdom of The Netherlands, and the Cherokee Nation would be deeply offended to be reduced to "minor" nations?

 

[synthboy]

I think there is something like this in the Greek World mod that comes with the game. Of course these are all based on long defunct societies and are unlikey to cause any offence.

 

[SmokeyD]

The Netherlands were the most powerful European nation in the 17th Century, and remained influential into the 18th.

 

[DarkOpus]

I think there is something like this in the Greek World mod that comes with the game. Of course these are all based on long defunct societies and are unlikey to cause any offence.

Good point. It would perhaps be interesting to see this implemented in mods and scenarios of the ancient world. Truth be told, I don't think people would be too offended by being a minor nation. Scotland, for civilization purposes, may fall into this category, but they would be an excellent addition to a Terra game as England.

Perhaps not allowing minor nation cities to develop settlers could be the way to introduce this. Certainly the upcoming Vassal States option whets my appetite with how these two ideas could fit together.

 

[chef pablo]

the mayan,greek,goths,viking,celts,zulu,all city states.cities fought each other within the empire and fought often.they were all minor civs if you look at it.I think the real thing that created empires was the abillity to feed and rule the masses.The greek never realy had an empire you were either a soldier, priest or peasant there wasnt much food to go aroand for more than that.representation did allow the greek to hold rule over 2 maybee3 cities but that was it.The romans were the first true empire by being able to feed the masses they developed classes an elite to govern, a middle class to handle comerce and a peasant class to feed the empire the romans were the first to break the city state problem. The goth,celts and vikings werent able to get it together till they were able to farm northern europe or trade for the magical fruite that could feed the world,grain is the solution if you cant farm it your a minor civ if your not intriduced to it (mayan)your a minor civ.

 

[mjs0]

Don't you think that the Republic of Poland, the Kingdom of The Netherlands, and the Cherokee Nation would be deeply offended to be reduced to "minor" nations?

With 24 civs available after the Warlords expansion comes out (and more to follow in the next one assumes) plus all those available from mods...perhaps when configuring the game one could specify how many are to be full AI opponents and how many minor nations. That way the whole thing could be random (or selected by the player(s)) so no one should get offended.

 

[SmokeyD]

Good point. It would perhaps be interesting to see this implemented in mods and scenarios of the ancient world. Truth be told, I don't think people would be too offended by being a minor nation. Scotland, for civilization purposes, may fall into this category, but they would be an excellent addition to a Terra game as England.

It would be interesting, but unfortunately in Terra games one city is easily enough to dominate the whole of the British Isles.

Perhaps not allowing minor nation cities to develop settlers could be the way to introduce this. Certainly the upcoming Vassal States option whets my appetite with how these two ideas could fit together.

I think a limit on the number of settlers, rather than preventing them entirely would be better. A single city civ played by the AI is bound to fail against a hungry human player.

the mayan,greek,goths,viking,celts,zulu,all city states.cities fought each other within the empire and fought often.they were all minor civs if you look at it.I think the real thing that created empires was the abillity to feed and rule the masses.The greek never realy had an empire you were either a soldier, priest or peasant there wasnt much food to go aroand for more than that.representation did allow the greek to hold rule over 2 maybee3 cities but that was it.The romans were the first true empire by being able to feed the masses they developed classes an elite to govern, a middle class to handle comerce and a peasant class to feed the empire the romans were the first to break the city state problem. The goth,celts and vikings werent able to get it together till they were able to farm northern europe or trade for the magical fruite that could feed the world,grain is the solution if you cant farm it your a minor civ if your not intriduced to it (mayan)your a minor civ.

That's very wrong. First of all, empire isn't defined by specialisation and extensive food production. Secondly, Rome wasn't the first state to achieve this even if this was the definition. Greece certainly established an empire that stretched from Macedonia in the west to India in the East under Alexander the Great, and Athens had colonies spread through the Medediterreanan before that. Further east, Persia and its predecessors had a long tradition of empires with diverse class structures and influential beauracracy. The entire system of India depended on this fact.

And while the barbarian tribes of Northern Europe were less politically or economically sophisticated than Rome, this didn't prevent them from establishing empires. For a brief period, Atilla the Hun's political influence rivalled that of his Roman enemies.

 

[The Yankee]

Well, they could try it, although I don't think it will go through, and not because of programming problems.

The problem with having "minor" nations is that a lot of actual nations could be offended.

Lets say that the nations used as "minor" nations would include people like the Cherokee, the Dutch, the Aboriginies, the Polish, etc. Nations who have played major roles on the global stage, but have never been directors of international policy in the same way that the original, playable nations have.

Don't you think that the Republic of Poland, the Kingdom of The Netherlands, and the Cherokee Nation would be deeply offended to be reduced to "minor" nations?

Maybe they could all be playable and you could rotate and have random minor nations, like you can put in random civs. Because Germany might not always be a major nation in every fictional world.

 

[King Flevance]

This would be a pretty cool idea. I think it would be fun to take out "barbarians" and have the map randomly assign section of the world to a specific barbarian type. As far as I am concerned they could just make up names, like taking the language of say Kenya and use a word like "rebel" or "warrior" maybe go the route of the word "society" or something. They could use a slew of words so that each game would pull about 10 choices out of a hat with 100 in it.

I think their actions should be close to that of the barbarians in the game today. The only difference I would say is that you could trade resources with them and possibly get a city to join you. However, you can culturally conquer a barb city now as it is. But I think the most fun aspect of this would be the ability to trade resources with them or even "pay them off" to attack another actual opponent.

I think this would be a fun idea.

 

[chef pablo]

It would be interesting, but unfortunately in Terra games one city is easily enough to dominate the whole of the British Isles.



I think a limit on the number of settlers, rather than preventing them entirely would be better. A single city civ played by the AI is bound to fail against a hungry human player.



That's very wrong. First of all, empire isn't defined by specialisation and extensive food production. Secondly, Rome wasn't the first state to achieve this even if this was the definition. Greece certainly established an empire that stretched from Macedonia in the west to India in the East under Alexander the Great, and Athens had colonies spread through the Medediterreanan before that. Further east, Persia and its predecessors had a long tradition of empires with diverse class structures and influential beauracracy. The entire system of India depended on this fact.

And while the barbarian tribes of Northern Europe were less politically or economically sophisticated than Rome, this didn't prevent them from establishing empires. For a brief period, Atilla the Hun's political influence rivalled that of his Roman enemies.

due to representation and millitary might athens was able to hold power over a larger region but the rest of greece was a city state troy spartan all had thier own leaders but they gave alledgance to greece and went to battle under the same banner.Yes they were an empire but not in the same since that the roman politicle machine was.
as for atilla he most certainly comanded the forces of the hun but the leadership was splintered and his biggest acheavment was uniting the hun to fight under one banner under one leader beyond that there was no further uniting .

 

[PhysicsRules]

This sounds like a great idea. Especially in combination with the new "Vassal State" option in Warlords. When you encounter a 'minor civ', they will easiy be subdued to be a vassal. In this way, you can create a world with a couple of mayor civs and inbetween them a lot of vassal buffer states, a bit like Europe was in the cold war.

 

[DarkOpus]

Greece certainly established an empire that stretched from Macedonia in the west to India in the East under Alexander the Great, and Athens had colonies spread through the Medediterreanan before that.

There are two factors in play here. Firstly, the city state. E.g. Athens, Sparta, Mytiline, Thebes etc. Secondly the Pan Hellene world - the city states saw themselves as seperate peoples united through common ties (being mentioned in the Homeric epics being a major one, something Rome was desperate to get in on in the Augustan period). That does not equate with an empire as we understand it.

Again, this is the kind of complexity that cannot be represented in the vanilla Civ4 (though I would prefer a simple 'Hellene' name change). Getting down to this level of pernicitousness should be saved for mods and scenarios. That way everyone's happy!

 

[chef pablo]

There are two factors in play here. Firstly, the city state. E.g. Athens, Sparta, Mytiline, Thebes etc. Secondly the Pan Hellene world - the city states saw themselves as seperate peoples united through common ties (being mentioned in the Homeric epics being a major one, something Rome was desperate to get in on in the Augustan period). That does not equate with an empire as we understand it.

Again, this is the kind of complexity that cannot be represented in the vanilla Civ4 (though I would prefer a simple 'Hellene' name change). Getting down to this level of pernicitousness should be saved for mods and scenarios. That way everyone's happy!

thanx for the support and thanx for the wakeup.All i realy wanted to say was that A lot of archeoligical evedence points to cultivtion of grain as the key to civ groath and structure,rice and wheat being those grains,look at papa newguinni and the maya for that evidence both farmed for hundreds of years but were missing a key to make that jump ,food to feed the masses people and animal alike.As cultivation of grain grew more civs grew.
there are a lot of key moments in history were civilization made that jump and it had everything to with available resorces and technology we should use that as a means to develope minor civs.Look at the ages and determin what was the key for development of that age,stone age,wheat required for agriculture tech,iron age iron required for tech and so on.

 

[Xenophonos]

At one point the Athenian city-state was itself an Empire, controlling dozens of city-states around the Aegean Sea.

Food was an issue within Ancient Greece, however the establishment of colonies by cities like Corinth, Argos, Athens, etc... from Spain to Ukraine and even Egypt were largely intended to supply grain to the Parent colony and was a way many of the city-states got around the food issue.

After the accomplishments of Alexander the Great and the spread of Hellenistic culture, one could travel from Spain to India speaking only Greek.

The Greeks had empires, from the Athenians to the Spartans to the Greek city-state of Macedonia, to the Successor Empires and era of the Wars of the Diadochoi to the Eastern Roman Empire - Later called the Byzantine Empire.

Someone mentioned a name change for the Greeks to Hellenes, not a bad idea...

As for the topic of the thread, I agree with the idea of Minor States but the programming would be insanely difficult for a concept that is nice, but kind of impractical.

(Looking forward to Vassal States in the expansion!)

 

[DarkOpus]

At one point the Athenian city-state was itself an Empire, controlling dozens of city-states around the Aegean Sea.

Food was an issue within Ancient Greece, however the establishment of colonies by cities like Corinth, Argos, Athens, etc... from Spain to Ukraine and even Egypt were largely intended to supply grain to the Parent colony and was a way many of the city-states got around the food issue.

After the accomplishments of Alexander the Great and the spread of Hellenistic culture, one could travel from Spain to India speaking only Greek.

The Greeks had empires, from the Athenians to the Spartans to the Greek city-state of Macedonia, to the Successor Empires and era of the Wars of the Diadochoi to the Eastern Roman Empire - Later called the Byzantine Empire.

Someone mentioned a name change for the Greeks to Hellenes, not a bad idea...

As for the topic of the thread, I agree with the idea of Minor States but the programming would be insanely difficult for a concept that is nice, but kind of impractical.

(Looking forward to Vassal States in the expansion!)

The nomenclature of the ancient world is a nightmare! I agree with your general synopsis but would reword: "The [city states] had empires, from the Athenians to the Spartans [...]" for example (my brackets). I'm afraid the concept of 'Greece' as we know it was very different from how the ancient people of the modern day Greek peninsula saw it, hence the reason why I was pushing for Hellene. I accept that this probably won't happen, most people coming across the Hellenes would simply ask "who?"!

One point on the Byzantines, that whole concept is a bit of retrojection. IIRC the ethnonym of the people labelled with 'Byzantine' was Romoioi, which says it all... Greek speaking Romans!

Thirded on looking forward to Vassal States, I've been waiting for something like this for some time...

 

[Xenophonos]

One point on the Byzantines, that whole concept is a bit of retrojection. IIRC the ethnonym of the people labelled with 'Byzantine' was Romoioi, which says it all... Greek speaking Romans!

The word Byzantine is used to distinguish the Roman Empire based in Rome and the Medieval Empire which thrived in the East for over a thousand years whose culture carried on the traditions of the Ancient Greeks and Romans but was different in many ways. Instead of calling it the "Roman" Empire, it's distinguished as Byzantine Empire.

Such misnomers are found throughout the world and throughout history. This is also true of the word "Greeks", which was the Latin word for Graeci, what the Romans called the Greeks. However the Greeks always referred to themselves as Hellenes.

But Greek is the popular name and thus it has stuck, the same is true with the Byzantines.

 

[chef pablo]

aside from the actuality of roman geece and so on can this be programed ?I rather like the idea of certain techs needing a resorce to reserch it and if you dont have it well your not advancing any further.Just imagine if the lower mississipian indians had wheat and barley to cultivate ,we might be looking at the gulf of mexico as being the cradle rather then mesopatania.