17-07-2004 02:40									#31
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by Abdul Alhazred Why not making a new the list with it ?

Seconded. But it might be better as part of DC's Civilization part of the List. Good work btw Fosse.

	17-07-2004 03:17									#32
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

Thanks guys. I'll post my big post, amended with the thoughts that everyone here has provided into the Civilizations thread (I thought that was just a list of civs people wanted in the game!)

	19-07-2004 06:19									#33
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

I would like to see the concept of "minor races" similar to GalCiv. I think the entire time the barb concept has been half-way there,. "Modern barbs" in Civ2, using artillery they got from who-knows-where making a frontal assualt on ur industrialized civ is silly. I dont like the conceptual of "when I research construction/Currency or whatever last tech I need to get into the next age 25 barb horsies suddenly appear either. I would like barb uprising to be more random. But make them more likely in times of war. This can represent pillages in ancient times, and partisans (for whichever side) in modern times.

	19-07-2004 23:17									#34
	Put an end to popups!

This post may not be completely new, but I think it at least solidifies previous ideas, even if just mine.

The purpose of minor civs: to have a lot of civs, to have more of the obscure ones that people (me) want. In at least one other thread, it seemed like most people did not want a lot of civs. People did not want civs without uniqueness. Minor civs can be civs without uniqueness. Let them have as many city names as major civs. If my idea for complex relationships between city names were to be implemented, maybe it wouldn't apply to minor civs. For a civ such as Troy, maybe it wouldn't have a lot of city names. Probably minor civs wouldn't have internal provinces. If major civs have more than one available ruler, minor civs would only have one, possibly ficticious, or none, if it would make sense. Minor civs wouldn't have subordinate characters, like great leaders. Minor civs wouldn't need Traits or unique units, but maybe units shared within their culture group. Minor civs should be definitely assigned to culture groups, and this would not have to be balanced. Minor civs might be ideal for island cultures like Hawaii or Tonga. Minor civs should be playable, and it should be possible to play a minor civ version of a major civ. It should be possible to play a game with no major civs, and possibly this would be somewhat like Civ2. Minor civs might not have any special AI, while major civs might. As you may have guessed, I want minor civs to be the same as majors regarding building units and improvements, culture, and technology and such. They would be disadvantaged by not having Traits or unique units. I myself would be completely satisfied if the obscure civs I want are in without uniqueness. I do not want maps large enough for hundreds of minor civs, but I do want many, many minor civs available. Minor civs can be given uniqueness in the editor. Creating minor civs in the editor is good for if some major civ characteristics are difficult for some players to create. It's nice to learn that I'm not alone in wanting lots of civs. Scenarios, both premade and usermade, can be composed entirely of minor civs.

	20-07-2004 01:40									#35
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Things I forgot or didn't think to mention: If there are ruler portraits for major civs, maybe not for minors. There could be Culture Groups composed entirely of minors. Minor civs are the same as majors in diplomacy and trade. Minors might all be peaceful by default.

	20-07-2004 01:46									#36
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

whoops, also, if major civs have their own art for standard unis, or their own units with the same abilities, minors either have completely generic ones or specific to culture group.

	20-07-2004 15:02									#37
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Fosse, good ideas. However, I have problems with minor civ's cities lacking infrastructure. Only think what happens when you conquer a minor civ's city - it won't have any buildings!

	20-07-2004 15:38									#38
	Put an end to popups!

Same thing happens, when I bombard civ3 cities from 12 to 1... odd. No buildings...

	20-07-2004 16:34									#39
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

one minor (hahah geddit?) point i would like like to add is an event that triggers minor civs to switch to a major civ due to say, a new reigme and inspiring leader -something that seeems to happen all the time - civilzations sudddenly poping out of obscurity. this might happen due to extreme unhappiness ( 2+ cities in disrder) in a neighbouring major civ combined with militaryweakness. The effect apart from status change could a mass of miltary unit appearing, a 'golden age' to allow them to catch up or their UU appearing(?). This could be a good tie in with the revolution/cvil war concept.

	20-07-2004 22:01									#40
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by Brent Things I forgot or didn't think to mention: If there are ruler portraits for major civs, maybe not for minors. There could be Culture Groups composed entirely of minors. Minor civs are the same as majors in diplomacy and trade. Minors might all be peaceful by default.

I'm not interested in going down this road myself. I think that major and minor civs should both come from the same "tribes." In any given game Japan might be major or minor (and maybe switch between the two!).

Just making a list of what minor civs won't have doesn't seem to me to be a compelling reason to have them at all. If they are just normal civs but without traits or leaderheads then we run into the same problems we would have if we just tripled the number of regular civs available (turn length, micromanaging complex diplomacy with dozens of countries).

The idea of minor civs being brought to the world stage by an important event sounds great to me. Maybe a few turns after a slot opens up (or if some were avaialable all along) you would start hearing rumors about a previously obscure society uniting under the military might of one general.

	21-07-2004 10:02									#41
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

On the downside, minor civs would just wind up as victims of the majors (especially players).

	21-07-2004 19:13									#42
	Tired of ads?

Yes, and than the game should replace them with split-of civs from the majors...

	11-08-2004 02:23									#43
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Minor civs don't need to be completely helpless. The Dutch might be considered a a minor civ compared to England, France, and Spain, but the Dutch fought wars and allied with and against these powers. Minor civs could be used as a wedge against your enemies. By doing diplomacy on them, you can get trade and defense treaties. They have their own relations and wars, which you could run by proxy, without getting protests. This might duplicate the hotter parts of the Cold War, with superpowers fighting their wars through minors. And, of course, they might get tired of your Machievellian games and tell you to go blow.

	11-08-2004 10:06									#44
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

Proxy wars? Great idea!

	13-08-2004 03:24									#45
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

I don't like the idea of minor civs. Just stick with regular civs instead. Civ's quite often become inconsequential (or minor) in the game as they lose their resources, and cities and fall behind in tech.

	15-08-2004 09:07									#46
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: The Mongols were not partiuclarly inventive- I can't think of any ideas they provided the world becuase other civs did not even adapt their military structure-but they are a mayor civ simply by the fact they conquered the biggest land empire in history and in doing so changed history.

Just because other nations did not adopt their military structure does not mean that they had nothing to contribute.

Their military structure is their inventiveness, and the reason for their vast success over slower and weaker enemies.

Another reason why their tactics were not adopted is because the Mongol tactics were uniquely suited to their land, and their area. Does it make sense in Europe with densely populated forts to learn to fight as the mongols did? Not really. So Europe did not adopt their style,

	15-08-2004 09:09									#47
	Inflate your Upload Space

I have an idea, why not allow for annexations? Suppose a nation is getting clobbered, but wants help? Couldn't you have that nation band with your enemy, and allow your enemy to gain all that territory instantly in order to continue the battle?

This would speed up simplification, and allow for better games, as the smaller empires become vunerable to annexations.

You could even have bidding wars between two strong nations, and a nation in the middle.