RFC: Warlords: Minor Civilizations

[Surtur]

A minor civ is a civ that has no UP, UB (warlords), UU and is always at war with other civs. On top of this, I don't think they can build settlers (not sure about that one..).

The only difference between a minor civ and a regular civ is that the MC doesn't show up at the score table and is at war with everyone. Minor civs can have UUs, UBs (if we want them to have some) and of course can build settlers.

 

[mitsho]

The only difference between a minor civ and a regular civ is that the MC doesn't show up at the score table and is at war with everyone. Minor civs can have UUs, UBs (if we want them to have some) and of course can build settlers.

Not in this mod!

The idea of the minor civ was just that it is unplayable as it has no chance of winning the game, the Zulu could be a nice example. Otherwise they are just placeholders, the Celts for example!

It would not make any sense at all if they were at war with everyone all the time. You could maybe subgroup the Minors into aggressive and builder ones, so you could give the appearing barbarian hordes a face and a name (Berbers, Huns, ...), but these minor civs would be nothing more then barbarians with a name while on the other side, the builder civs would 'hinder (peaceful) expansion', but would allow to quickly get new Cities (not outposts to begin with) in the areas, for example a South East Asian civ, or a Boer-civ in South Africa for the British, or even a Maya civ in Mesoamerica for the Aztecs (this way they could also use their Unique Power a bit ...

mfG mitsho

 

[Elhoim]

That would be nice, but I think this feature is hardcoded. Rhye would know better.

 

[Surtur]

Of course we can have civs which are unplayable and restrict them from building certain units (e.g. settlers) but these civs would again slow down the game.
Minor civs wouldn't slow down the game so much because they have no diplomacy.

 

[Rhye]

That would be nice, but I think this feature is hardcoded. Rhye would know better.

I've partially recoded it. Wait and see.

 

[Rhye]

Minor civs wouldn't slow down the game so much because they have no diplomacy.

I aint sure of this. Their war/peace state is recorded, and probably their attitude too.
So, complexity grows as fast as n^2 (that is, n(n-1))

 

[Elhoim]

I've partially recoded it. Wait and see.

That´s great!

 

[Phallus]

Am I the only one who thinks it might be good to allow limited diplomacy (open borders and the means for peace settlements, perhaps) with minor civs?

 

[kairob]

I think it should be ok, but what then becomes the difference between minor and major civs?

 

[Phallus]

It might be an idea to allow diplomacy but set their initial stance with everyone as 'war'. You can then try and achieve peace if you're motivated to.

 

[kairob]

See I would suggest doing it the other way around, setting it as peace and then once your at war then thats it. Like shogun total war...

 

[Phallus]

That's a much better idea. What are the chances of something like this being implemented?

 

[Rhye]

wait lads.

Limited diplomacy is impossible, that's really hardcoded I think - it becomes a major civ otherwise.

Changing peace/war status is possible instead, and that's what I did with independent states. They're in peace, turn to war if attacked, and switch to peace again after a few peaceful turns.

 

[McA123]

That's a good solution... So what MC's did you end up deciding to include? Or is it still up in the air?

 

[Lachlan]

Nice ! Very nice ! Long life to Rhye

 

[kairob]

nice solution rhye Like it

 

[Hitti-Litti]

Don't make questions, McA123. At least I don't wanna ruin the surprise.

Rhye, what about Babylonian assets? Do you release first version of RFC:W without 'em?

 

[Rhye]

to the first release the following things are missing:

-Babylon
-a few adjustments to the map
-UPs for new civs
-UHVs for new civs
-Pedia for new civs
-bugfixes
(the rest, including additional Minor civs, comes later).

At the moment the version I could release is incomplete. All I could do know is mailing the link to some of you who want to do some tests.

 

[Cucumber]

Isn't it possible to make some minor civs disappears at a certain time (their cities all become then barbarians) and others appearing later?
This way you may include all "major" minorciv from an era and so on until the modern minor states as Brasil or Indonesia.

i can't resist to write down my good ideas about which minorcivs must appears if my question got a positive answer and if Rhye (king of coders) find it interesting.

Minor Civs raising :

Stone Age :
Hebrews
Creta?
Mesopotamia

Classic Era :
Goths
Celts

Medieval Era
Khmers or/and Siam
Korea
Poland-Lithuania (Jagellon)
Abyssinia

Renaissance :
Mayas
Zulus

Modern Times :

South Africa
Canada
Brasil
Australia
Indonesia

Maybe :

Argentina
Ukrain
Turkey

Maybemaybe :

Pakistan
Korea
Confederate States of America
Austro-Hungarian Empire

Well that was funny to write,
Long life to RFC who takes so much of our lifetime !

cheers

 

[lumpthing]

Changing peace/war status is possible instead, and that's what I did with independent states. They're in peace, turn to war if attacked, and switch to peace again after a few peaceful turns.

That would be fantastic. Long live Rhye indeed

I like most of Cucumber's suggestions for minor civs. I would particularly like to see Ethiopia, Korea, Siam, Poland-Lithuania, Austria-Hungary and all of Latin America included as minor civs. I think with minor civs it would be fine to put them in very loose categories: e.g. independent Europeans, South Americans. Whatever it takes to replace barbarians with minor civs.

However, the problem with having Australia, Canada and South Africa as minor civs is that they wouldn't be able to participate in any wars in defence of their allies, when historically, this has been an important part of their history. I get the impression that those countries still considered themselves part of the British Empire, albeit as equals with the UK rather than colonies, well after gaining sovereign governments, and it was only after WW2 that this relationship drastically altered.

Some of the suggestions, such as the Goths, Zules (and maybe Mayas?) were actually pretty aggressive and unstable and I think may be better represented as barbarians.

As a somewhat off-topic aside: it would be nice if players could somehow or other avoid potential minor civs wanting to become independent. Maybe through having democracy early on, not suffering major defeats in war and building an "imperial federation" wonder. This might contradict the historical ethos of the mod, but it's always good t play a "what if?" history.