Information - Civ 4: The List
Civilizations II
Index
1.0.0 Types of Civs
2.0.0 Rulers
3.0.0 Colonies
4.0.0 Immigration
5.0.0 Nations' Compositions
6.0.0 Proposed Civ Lists
7.0.0 Civ Traits
8.0.0 Civ Placement
9.0.0 Unique Units
10.0.0 Other
Conclusion
3.0.0 Colonies
3.0.1 Colonies As Air Bases
*Colonies should be counted as air bases. You own them, they're outside of your
territory and they are semi cities...so why can't you land planes there?
-Jer8m8
3.0.2 Combatting ICS With Colonies
*If the colonies, for example, contribuited toward corruption costs but couldn't
grow beyond certain sizes or produce certain items, and yet proved useful to the
player in harvesting resources in certain areas, then they would fit a nice civ-game
niche.
-DarkCloud
-You can only build it on top of a resource. However, you can build one on the
coast as long as it's on an island, across a sea, ocean, etc, and connected to a
resource (with a colony on it).
-You can only build one colony per resource tile, and you must declare which
resource it is connected to (any of them not already claimed by another colony).
-You can only station (and build) smaller boats there (galleys, privateers,
caravels, galleons, transports, destroyers).
-You can station up to two air units there, but only if you have an airstrip
(same functions as an airport).
-You can station as many ground units as you want until you hit tanks (you can
only station 5 or so).
-You can build a barracks, so that you don't have to transport back obsolete
units to upgrade them.
-A colony only has influence on the square that it is located on.
-Colonies act as population 1, and may fall into civil disorder (which may
eventually force the disbading of the colony). There is always a specialist,
however, and it may be any of the normal kind (so as to make it specialized in
some sort of way).
-A colony will disband if captured or if someone elses boundaries encircle it.
-Bob Rulz
4.0.0 Immigration
*Immigration/ Emigration.I once sent a post on another pre-CIV3 forum somewhere
where I wanted this issue debated. CIV3 already has parts of it: if you conquer
an enemy city, e.g the Greeks its inhabitants will still be greek for some
while, happy or not. Now what would happen if the greeks could actually send
people into your cities as workers whenever you're not at war, for example if
your city is close to the greek borders. What if any civilization could do that?
The city status window could show a diagram of the city population demographics,
saying "90% Romans, 5% Greek, 2% Babylonians" or so. Those cities with more
than, say, 20% foreign inhabitants could likely fall into disorder when a war
erputs, or anytime on higher difficulty levels... restrictive/repressive
governments (Communism? Despotism?) might throw out "unwanted" foreigners, thus
decreasing city sizes... of course, YOU (the player) could send your own people
to foreign cities... they would leave anyway if they don't like the way you
govern the country, adding up to your competitor's city sizes... spies could
only plant propaganda in cities holding inhabitants of your civilization (they
can barely hide with people which language they don't speak or so)...
-Cozy_22303
*Migration between cities of the same Civ
-Brent
*Allow some sort of ethnic purging, or allow some ability to expel ethnic groups
from your civ if they grow too rowdy.
-Shogun Gunner
5.0.0 Nation's Compositions
5.1.0 Minorities
*You should be able to set up specific
policies concerning how you treat your minority populations - do you tolerate
them, promote a multicultural society, try to assimilate them or persecute them?
*Perhaps you should only be able to set policies about minority groups
comprising 20% of any individual city's population or 5% of your civilization's
population, just so that this system does not become too unweildly.
-Stefu
5.2.0 Dual-Heritage
*As for citizens, they should be able to have at least a dual heritage that
affects the relative levels of happiness and corruption in the cities you
conquer... and also, this could introduce problems of immigration- for example:
if too many Assyrians come into Babylonian cities- then perhaps the city will
'culture flop' into Assyrian when the next war occurs.
*I would also like to see nationality levels for all citizens.
-Drachasor/DarkCloud
5.3.0 Ethnic Heritage
*I think that generally every conquered civilization should maintain its
ethnic heritage. There should be some way to deal with the various ethnic
values/wants/disagreements when managing your civilization. Therefore, if you
want to conquer the world you'll have to find some way to appease those you are
conquering, otherwise they might revolt and refound their civilization (perhaps
this would allow you to exceed the max number of civs in the game). This would
make it so that as you take over more groups it becomes more difficult to manage
them all which means that conquering the world would not become a cake walk
after a certain point. (Ed: Note, much
like Europa Universalis’ religion-slider, except adapted into an Ethnic-slider)
-Drachasor
6.0.0 Proposed Civ Lists
6.1.0 More Balanced (Asian, Africans Included) (37 civs)
Americans
Iroquois
Aztecs
Mayans
Incas
French
Germans
English
Celts
Spanish
Romans
Greeks
Russians
Norsemen
Dutch
Portuguese
Hungarians
Turks
Arabs
Hebrews
Babylonians
Assyrians
Persians
Egyptians
Carthagians
Ethiopians
Mali (or possibly some other West African civ of the era - Songhay, Dahomey
etc.)
Zulus
Mongols
Indians
Vietnamese
Siamese
Koreans
Chinese
Khitai
Japanese
Javans
-Stefu
6.2.0 Add-on to Conquests' Civs
*Besides the civs that are in Conquests, I strongly agree on including the
Hebrews and Ethiopians. Many small ancient Middle Eastern civilizations can be
added.
-Brent
*The first thing period should be: every civ in civ3+ptw+conquests should carry
over.
-Q Cubed
6.3.0 The Grand List of Proposed Civilizations (61 Civs) (39 if the 'maybes'
are taken out)
The Americas (11)
Iroquois
Americans
*Sioux/Lakota
Mayas
Aztecs
Incas
*Nazca (maybe)
*Inuit (maybe)
*Utes (maybe)
*Anasazi (maybe)
*Mississippians/Mound Builders (maybe)
West Europe: (11)
English
France
Spain
Portugal
Germany
Netherlands/Dutch
Vikings
*Sweden
*Ireland (maybe)
*Italy (maybe)(ed: We already have Rome)
Celts
Eastern Europe: (3)
Russia
*Poland (maybe)
*Austria (since they had alot of slavs) (maybe)
Mediterranean: (4)
Rome
Greece
Carthage
Egypt
Byzantine (maybe)
Africa: (7)
*Shonghai
*Ashanti
*Mali
*Ethiopia
Zulu
*Xhosa (maybe)
*Bantu or Kenya or Tanzania (maybe)
Middle East: (9)
Arabs
Turkey/Ottoman Empire
Persia
*Israel/Hebrew (maybe)
*Numbia (maybe)
Babylon
*Assyria
Sumeria
Hittite
South/Southeast Asia (6)
India
*Harappa (maybe)
*Khemer (maybe)
*Indonesia/ Majaphit empire
*Thailand (maybe)
*Champa (maybe)
Far East Asia: (6)
China
Japan
Korea
Mongolia
*Tibet (or should this go with south asia?) (maybe)
*Dai Viet (Vietnamese civ) (maybe)
For Oceania: (3)
*Polynesians
*Maori (maybe)
*Aborigiese (ed-Can we really count this
as a 'civ'... from my understanding, they weren't that civilized... and Plotinus
backs me up on this: "I'd have thought that the definition of a civilisation -
at least from the point of view of this game - involves some degree of
urbanisation." And frankly I think that Civilization has to do with movement
from Hunter/Gatherer to Farming.
*All Civilizations marked with a * are new civilizations not already in Civ3,
PTW, C3C
-civilleader/Nuclear Master
6.3.1 Anti-Byzantine
*I hate to say it but I really don't want Byzantium again, they are Greeks in
the location where the ottomans need to be
-civilleader
6.4.0 More than just names
I'd favour more civs, so long as its not just a CtP style list of names that
makes your eventual choice meaningless
-joncha
6.5.0 Criteria for the Inclusion of Civs
Civs should be included not just did because they played a role in the history
of civilization (because which culture hasn't?) but can you give them a
specialization that has some historical importance and add to game play in a
unique way
-joncha
6.6.0 Adding Israel Should Open Doors/ A Mandate for Adding Civs
*But if Israel were to be included then the mandate for including other civs
which were not dominant or don't rule their own territory would be opened. How
about a Kurd, Basque, or Rom/Rum civ
-EnduringBlue
6.7.0 The "Overkill" Civ List (64 Civs)
American (11)
USA
Inuit
Sioux
Iroquois
Hopewell
Mississippian
Anasazi
Aztec
Olmec
Maya
Inca
Europe (15)
Portugal
Spain
Basque
France
Dutch
Germany
English
Scandinavia
Celts
Ukranians
Lithuanians
Rome
Russia
Austria
Greece
Africa (4)
Carthage
Egypt
Ethiopia
Zulu
Near East (12)
Egypt
Israel
Moab
Canaan
Arabia
Hittites
Phoenicians
Assyria
Babylon
Sumer
Persia
Crete
Central Asia (4)
Turkey
Turkmenistan
Mongolia
India
Far East (8)
Tibet
Tocharia
China
Korea
Japan
Harappans
Ainu
Java
Oceania (3)
Australian Aborigines (ed: see my comments
on this in 6.3.0)
Maori
Hawaiians
-Brent
6.8.0 A Civ-Creating Philosophy
To me the most important reason for more civs is to have thew designers
pregenerate names for the cities. Different abilities are not so important to
me, and maybe if we do get 200 civs we should do away with abilities. If there
aren't 200 pregenerated civs, at least makke it easy to store that many and use
them conveniently, and if there are 200, have space for 100 custom ones.
-Brent
6.9.0 Adding Too Many Civs
CON
*Each civ, if Included, should have Unique Units, Unique Traits, Unique City
Names and Unique Ruler Names (although some face-heads could possible be grayed
out... therefore, since we want each civ to be unique-
Why bother putting in fifty redundant civs?
-DarkCloud/skywalker
PRO
*Frankly, if there are dozens and dozens of Civs, then I'm not concerned if some
are just like others. I can pick a group of Civs out for their strategic pros
and cons, and then select among that group for less tangible reasons.
*What I would like to see in Civ 4 are a greater spread of Civ traits and their
effects (even degrees... a little agricultural or a lot?), and a huge number of
Civs that I think are "cool" and "deserve" to be in. Any ancient Civilization
that we know about should be in, no matter how minor they wound up being. Those
Civs deserve a place long before America, anyhow.
-Fosse
6.10.0 Solve Diverse Civ Problem with Minor Civs
*Maybe the controversy of how many civs and whether unique or not could be
solved with the concept of minor civs.
Have one one hand side a number of premade "unique" civs and then "non-player"
minor civs. Not barbarians, really independantly acting civs with the handicap
that they aren't allowed to build settlers and don't have unique units etc.
-Wernazuma III
6.11.0 The 100 Civs List
North America (7)
Cherokee*
Iroquois*
Americans
Hopewell/Mississippi
Anasazi/Hopi/Pueblo
Sioux*
+Ojibwa*
Central America (5)
Mixtecs/Zapotecs*
Maya
Aztecs
Olmecs
Toltecs
South America (8)
Aruak*
Inca
Chibcha*
Mapuche*
Tupi*
Chimú*
Nazca
Guaraní*
Africa (14)
Zulu
Egypt
Carthage
Ethiopia
Mali/Songhay
Nubians/Meroe*
Haussa*
Berber*
Ashanti*
Lunda/Luba*
Bornu-Kanem*
Kongo*
Yoruba*
Bantu*
Near East (13)
Babylon
Arabs
Persia
Ottomans
Hittites
Sumeria
Israel/Hebrews*
Phoenicians
Assyria
Armenians/Urartu*
Kurds*
Lydians*
Nabateans*
Middle East/Central Asia (12)
India
Mongols
Kushan*
Indus Culture
Tibetans*
Choresmians*
Tamils/Chola*
Khazars*
Tocharians*
Sikhs*
Uzbeks
Uygurs*
Far East/SE-Asia (10)
China
Korea
Japan
Khmer*
Thai/Siam
Annam*
Javans*
Malayans*
Champa*
Arakan/Burmese*
Europe (27)
Spain
Portugal
France
Germany
England
Vikings
Celts
Romans
Netherlands/Dutch
Greeks
Byzantines
Russians
Hungary
Poland* (Ed: Personally I would combine it
to Poland-Lithuania)
Bulgarians*
Lithuania*
Minoans*
Etruscans*
Bohemia*
Austria
Serbia*
Croatia*
Scotland*
Finland*
Cordobese *
Thracians*
Bosnia*
Oceania (2)
Polynesians*
Maori*
<(Ed: Personally I have issues with all the
starred civs and think that, if included, they should only be minor civs)
*The list was never meant as a list of 100% worthy fully developped civs. Most
of them wouldn't make good large civs. However, it should be possible to find
one personality for most of them, and at least two cities/sites for each, thus
being ideal for "minor civs".
-Wernazuma III
*(Ed: Here's Enigma_Nova's comment on the
whole 'Many-Civ's concept’)
There are plenty of historical civs, but some of them are
closely aligned.
It would be pointless to have clone civs - even if they have different graphics.
Some of those civs mentioned would be pretty close to one-another.
It's not worth making a new facade for the same underlying principle.
-Enigma_Nova
6.12.0 Great Rulers/Unique Units/Unique Traits Needed for Civ Inclusion
*Firaxis really shouldn't add a civ unless it could put up at least 2
Kings/Queens/Rulers for each of the nation (2 rulers that are VERY GREAT) and
well known
*And possibly each civ should only be allowed in if it could have some unique
trait or attribute that no other civ on the face of the planet possesses
-DarkCloud
6.13.0 Another Way to Add Civs To the Game: Themed Expansions
*How about each expansion has a theme for the civs it includes, such as minor
ancient civs, minor modern civs, ficticious/ mythological civs. Maybe let there
be a small amount of content in each expansion that doesn't fit the theme.
-Brent
6.14.0 Civ-Engineering
*This would work similar to Civs "traits", but could include more a la Alpha
Centauri
A player could distribute a numer of points on special abilities of his civ.
Like:
Scientific 5
Industrial 6
Religious 6
Expansionist 4
.
.
.
Obdient 3 --> less riots, war weariness
Diplomatic 6 --> improved AI negotiations
Isolationist -3 --> worse trade negotiations
Repulsive -5 --> bad AI relations
Unique Unit 10 --> chose name, which unit to replace, which graphics, then
distribute a bonus point on A, D or Movement
Slavers 2 --> all units can turn enemy units into slave workers
Peaceful -10 --> no barracks, high war weariness
etc. etc.
In the same screen you'd be able to set how your people stands towards certain
governments which, in turn, could determine chances of civil war at govt.
changes
-Wernazuma III
6.15.0 Imperial Civs
*In no way should Israel be a Civ. Nor should any proposed Civ that was not at
some time for want of a better term "Imperial". If this isn't the criterion,
then we might as well have everyone and I don't believe the programmers want
that.
By that I mean a civ which was militarily and culturally dominant over a large
amount of territory at some time in the past.
-Agathon
6.16.0 Change "Scandinavians" back to "Vikings"
*Scandinavians is not a 'race' nor has it ever been. Viking was a
conglomeration of many Scandinavian tribes. If you notice, as the renaissance
and the 1600's came to the fore, the Norwegian and Swedish people were members
of two separate nations. The two nations may be Scandinavian, but they are not
and were not united- only under the Viking empire were they united with the
Danes.
-DarkCloud/Nikolai
7.0.0 Civilization Traits
*Perhaps One Trait should be able to fill two slots?
-Brent
*Perhaps there should be some civs that have a bonus 3rd trait?
-DarkCloud
*Some wonders of the world can either give the trait, or give opportunity to add
one, or freely change the traits for some time.
-MxM
*Each civ should have like 4 or 5 or 10 special attributes out of a list of as
many as they can come up with, instead of just 2
-Kramerman
*It'd be cool if resources were somehow attached to civs. Like maybe there are
like 3 times as many iron deposits in the game but only a one in 3 chance of
finding them, and the chance is higher for certiain civs.
Therefore if the xxx civilization had a
good Mining Trait, then it could discover more iron deposits whereas the civ
with the Hunting trait could only find 1, the miner would find 4... Sort of a
"Search and Discover" sort of thing.)
-wrylachlan
*Or how about horses that tend to migrate towards a "horse-friendly" culture
like the mongols. If there is a mongol city within 5 tiles of horses they'll
move one tile every ten turns to get within their radius. Or maybe if you take
care of them (irrigate their tile) they have a percentage chance of generating a
second herd, and that chance is higher for the Mongols.
-wrylachlan
7.0.1 Give the AI a Target Philosophy
*Please, give the AI a target to follow. Everyone wants to win, but some
civilization prefers to win by domination, others by diplomatic achievements.
They should be intelligent enough to determine if their starting position makes
this way of winning possible at all - starting in a huge swamp will not actually
give you a huge bonus. I would have expected the Zulu, for example, to be a very
aggresive people, giving you with one hand and threatening you with the other,
regardless of their current strategic and financial situation.
-Cozy_22303
7.0.2 Switching Off Traits
*I couldn't care less about UUs or civ traits. Utterly meaningless fluff, IMO.
So long as they give you an option to switch them off.
-Sandman
7.1.0 Specific Trait Ideas
*Authoritarian/Obedient - Cheaper courthouses and police stations. Reduced
corruption. Less unhappiness from forced labor. War weariness is reduced.
*Fecund (couldn't come up with a non-pejorative sounding word. "Breeder" doesn't
sound good either) - cheaper granaries. Possibly cheaper workers, settlers,
harbors, aqueducts, and/or hospitals. Cities (pop 6-12) generate extra food on
city square. Metropolises (pop 13+) generate even more extra food on city
square). Workers possibly irrigate faster (but no other terrain improvements are
faster).
*Pacifist/Green/Tree Hugger - non-military based (no barracks, units, etc.)
production is cheaper (10-20%). Population produces less 10-20% pollution.
Cultural improvements are 10% cheaper. Extra resources from jungle and tundra
tiles. Military Morale is VERY LOW. People riot if there are more than 2
military units per city.
-sophist/DarkCloud
*Growth Oriented civs, with following bonuses : Extra food in town / city /
metropolis. Growth oriented improvements twice cheaper.
-Spiffor
*Offensive/Defensive
*Sedentary/Nomadic
*Forest Dwellers/Mountain Dwellers (Ed:
Personally I think this is more of a scripting issue than a civ attribute)
*Urban/Rural
*Industious/Environmental
-Kramerman
*Scientific
*Religious
*Militarilistic
*Industrious
*Seafaring
*Agricultural
*Expansionistic
*Commercial
-Nuclear Master
7.2.0 Altering Traits
*With each change of government, the civ can change the traits (like social
engineering in AC). Example: communist revolution in Russia, made that country
be militaristic, industrial, may be scientific as well.
*Different governments might allow a different number of traits
*Some of the traits should be fixed even with changes of government.
Example: Communist government must have militaristic trait, can not have
agricultural trait, and can chose to other traits
-MxM
*You could possibly alter during gameplay slightly by using the SMAC-like social
engineering and government: (Choosing which would give penalties and bonuses)
-Kramerman
7.3.0 Modifications to Traits
*The Scientific trait: Instead of one free advance for each age(which does
little good with so few ages), I'd like to see a bonus when researching, or a
bonus for scientific buildings.
-Nikolai
7.4.0 Differing Degrees of Traits' Effectiveness
*Perhaps the traits should differ in degree and effectiveness as well... For
example: a civ can be VERY agricultural +++ (as in Sid Meiers Alpha Centauri) or
GOOD agricultural ++ or just ABOVE NORMAL agricultural ++.
-Fosse/DarkCloud
7.6.0 Barbarian Civ Traits
*Barbarian Civs should have traits
-Brent
7.7.0 "Hardcoding" Traits
*I would like the Traits to not be hardcoded. So instead of a "Commercial" trait
you could simply assign different civs different bonuses, like commercial
building bonuses, an extra road bonus, extra trade in the city center, etc. etc.
This would allow a lot more differentiation of civs.
-wrylachlan
7.8.0 Option to "Turn Off" Traits
*There should be an option to "turn off" traits.
-DarkCloud
7.9.0 Selectable Traits
*Maybe you should type in your civilization's name at the beginning of each
game, and then choose your attributes from a list.
(Or at least have an option to as well as picking one of the pre-programmed
civilizations.)
This way, the people who want to play as the Scientific / Religious Faroe
Islander nation can do so.
-Mr. President
7.10.0 Golden-Age Bonuses for Traits
*In order to add more variance to traits I believe that Traits should gift extra
bonuses during civilization's golden ages.
In addition to the usual one extra gold and shield per tile during a golden age:
Scientific:
Increase the chance of scientific leaders appearing to ten percent, culture from
scientific buildings doubled
Militaristic:
Increase the chance of Military leaders to 1/8 (1/6 with Heroic epic), one extra
hitpoint for each unit
Agricultural:
Food from city square increased by one
Commercial:
Less corruption, one additional extra gold from city square
Industrial:
Workers take one less turn to complete tile improvements, one extra shield from
city square
Expansionist:
Land units which have two in movement + workers and settlers, have movement
increased by one
Religious:
Two extra content citizens per city, culture from religious buldings doubled
Seafaring:
Ship movement increased by one, one additional extra gold per coastal city
square
These are only suggestions. Some might be unbalanced, while others might suffer
from lack of imagination. I am especially unsure of the expansionist trait.
Agricultural is such a strong trait, that I think one golden age benefit will
suffice, and I could not think of another anyway.
-Tripledoc
7.11.0 Faction Editor
*Rather than have traits, how about have something about as involved as the SMAC
faction editor?
*This editor would be mainly for the benefit of scenario designers, and game
setup, not something that would get used in-game. Of course, the civs that get
shipped with the game will be designed using the full potential of this editor.
-lajzar
7.12.0 Role-Playing Traits
I really like the idea of taking a bit from RPGs and having the traits decided
by points, such as:
Ag 6
Sea 2
Exp 3
Mil 5
etc.
Therefore, the game is more customizable and as a culture evolves, it can gain
points in specific traits.
These points can lead to benefits such as cheaper building, faster ships, etc.
If you look at the game Europa Universalis and note how the leaders of each
culture and the generals gave their Empires different bonuses- you can get an
idea of how RPG-development of a civilization might work.
-JamesJKirk/DarkCloud
7.13.0 Political Traits
*Using a similar system to GalCiv, have standard traits for each civ plus the
player chooses extra traits for a political party or a specific leader, and
these bonus traits could be lost with a change of politics. The player can set a
number of points for all civs in the game.
-Brent
7.14.0 Dynamic Traits
*In thinking about Civs for Civ 4, I attached an Excel spreadsheet "showing"
what I think would be cool. Instead of a hard coded civ, like "England" with
pre-defined traits, I think it would be fun if you were a blank slate and you
either choose to meet your playing style, or these traits grow as you follow a
tech tree or by your actions in game.
The spreadsheet is cool because it is interactive. I also wish for some form of
legislative body because the chocie might be cool, but that is another topic.
But dynamic civs would be reaaaal cool. Because that is the next step (to me)
fof the franchise.
MS Excel worksheet
*I would like to see the Civ as a concept, not as a type. You could actually
make your "own" civilization each game, as you might pick different starting
traits each time, and then throgh out the game tweak the Policy of your civ to
specific circumstances.
*But as a meta-idea there are categories, people would have their own personal
perfences, but some might like a Authoritative Plurist Plutocracy (maybe South
Korea in the late 80's), others a Democratic Regional Aristocracy (kind of like
Wales)
*With this system, you could make the change, giving you flexibility. For
example, if you start Medieval times as peaceful, but as resources get tight,
your neighbors start attacking you; then overtime you would become more open to
military options because your people's attitudes change from war.
Therefore making a goverment policy to support the military would be more
acceptable. Giving you better combat units, prodcution or zeal to not go into
unhappiness. Those effects would be particular to the game mechanics.
-Mr. Orange
7.15.0 Civ-Uniqueness
*Maybe in the main game there would be only a few Civilizations with uniqueness,
but the editor could be designed in detail to allow players to implement new
civilizations and traits.
This would give us the large number of civs that apparently we all want, and
could provide our own uniqueness for the civs we use.
-Brent
7.16.0 In-Depth Trait System Suggestion
The following information is combined for two possible systems using the same
eight possible traits as Civ3: One primary and one secondary trait (the two with
the most points for each civ), and 10 points divided among the eight traits. I
welcome comments, alternate opinions for the same or an alternate system, and
civs not listed in the same or alternate systems. Hopefully my stats will be of
some use no matter what system we end up with.
America: industry 6, expansion 4
Arabs: religion 5, expansion 4, military 1
Aztecs: military 6, religion 3, agriculture 1
Babylon: science 6, religion 4
Byzantium: sea 4, science 3, commerce 2, military 1
Carthage: industry 5, sea 3, commerce 2
Celts: religion 4, military 3, agriculture 2, commerce 1
China: industry 5, military 3, science 2
Dutch: sea 4, agriculture 3, industry 2, military 1
Egypt: industry 6, religion 4
England: commerce 5, expansion 3, seafaring 2
France: commerce 6, industry 4
Germany: expansion 4, commerce 3, military 2, science 1
Greece: science 5, commerce 4, sea 1
Hittites: commerce 5, expand 3, military 2
Inca: expansion 4, agriculture 3, commerce 2, military 1
India: commerce 6, religion 4
Iroquois: expansion 4, religion 3, agriculture 2, commerce 1
Japan: military 5, religion 4, sea 1
Korea: commerce 6, science 4
Maya: industry 5, agriculture 3, military 2
Mongolia: military 5, expand 4, industry 1
Ottomans: science 5, industry 4, military 1
Persia: industry 4, science 3, military 2, commerce 1
Portugal: sea 5, expand 3, commerce 2
Russia: science 6, expand 4
Scandinavia: military 5, sea 3, expand 2
Spain: religion 4, sea 3, commerce 2, expand 1
Sumer: science 4, agriculture 3, commerce 2, military 1
Zulu: military 6, expansion 4
-Brent
7.17.0 Ruler Traits instead of Civilization Traits
One idea would be for civs to have the exact same trait system as Civ3 (two
of the same eight traits), and the ruler could add a third trait or add an
additional bonus to one of the civ traits. Or maybe the civ has 20 points
divided among the eight traits and the ruler adds 5 extra points.
Using the first system:
Andrew Jackson of America: Expansionist
JFK of America: Scientific
Uncle Sam of America: Militaristic
Moses of Israel: Religious
Joshua of Israel: Militaristic
David of Israel: Militaristic
Hawaii- Loa of Polynesia: Seafaring
Joseph of Egypt: Agricultural
Steven of Hungary: Religious
Isabella of Spain: Seafaring
-Brent
7.18.0 Advanced Civ Trait System Idea
*This would probably have to be a Civ5 idea if anyhting, but...
I guess each civ should have 20 points to divide among the Traits.
World powers always group their points in groups of 4 or 5. They could assign
more than one group of 4 or more than one group of 5 to the same Trait. Maybe
the groups would be grouped by 10 even, and maybe it wouldn't be allowed to put
all 20 points in the same Trait.
So the most powerful or "important" civs, maybe the most famous ancient civs
too, would be restricted to groups of maybe 20, and there would be a second rank
at 10, and so on. You could start at 20, 10, 5, or 4. 20 probably wouldn't be
interesting enough for the best known civs, and I like the idea of starting with
5 and having the next rank being only slightly lower at 4. There's also a good
argument for starting at 4 so each rank is easily divisible into the higher one.
Les powerful or famous civs would assign their Traits based on a more powerful
or famous one that they're related to, but slightly tweaked. Say the Russians
assign ten points to Trait A and ten to Trait B. The Polish could assign ten to
trait A, 5 to trait B, and 5 to trait C. Or it could work so that the Polish
have 11A and 9B. Or the Polish could have 12A and 8B, and the Czechs could have
13A and 7B, being on the next most obscure level. The most obscure civs would be
the most interesting. But I can see the problem with related civs automatically
having similar Traits. You could also have ten points assigned the same way for
an entire culture group and ten more assigned independently for each civ. The
Civs restricted to the largest blocks of points, the most powerful or famous
ones, there might be exactly one of these per culture group, possibly per
culture group per era. If there are three ranks, like 4, 2, and 1, maybe there
would be five in the middle rank per culture group and ten of the most obscure
rank per culture group.
-Brent
8.0.0 Civ Placement
*I like the idea of Civs being more at home in a specific terrain. They should
tend to start in a particulat terrain and be able to use that terrain better
than other civs can. I want some civs to be at home on the coasts of continents,
some on islands.
-Brent
9.0.0 Unique Units
9.1.0 Unique Traits For ALL The Units of a Civ
*I'd like a lot more unit based differentiation (not UU's).
Things like maybe the inca units travel along mountains as if they were
grasslands.
It still costs as much to climb a mountain or come down, but moving from one
mountain to the next is just like grasslands.
-wrylachlan
10.0.0 Other
10.1.0 Corruption and Golden Ages
I think the effects of corruption need to be seriously downplayed (I'll get to
how this connects to the topic in a moment). While corruption would still be
there, it would be a LOT weaker, and each civilization would have an
"instability number". The higher the number, the more unstable. If the number
passes a critical threshold, the civ breaks into several smaller civs. The
threshhold is effected by two main factors - research rate and civ size. A large
civ cannot afford much research, because it would break up. Thus, large empire
will eventually either a) break into pieces (though retaining its core) or b) be
overrun by smaller empires that have more advanced militaries from their faster
research. Those two could even be sort of combined - make significant military
losses increase instability.
This would not result in the destruction of the previously large civilization,
though. As the civ retains its core, it now becomes another small civilization.
In addition, we could have it so that when a civ loses cities it gains some of
the research of the conquering civ (this would speed up the collapse). Thus, we
get a true "rise and fall of empires".
A few other things about this - first, you wouldn't get much instability from
having a large nation, but rather a large empire (the difference being that the
latter is formed through the conquest of other states). So having people of
other cultures (and even more so people of other culture groups) would add more
to your instability than people of other cultures. Second, the government you
are in could modify the effects of research and size and cultures on your
instability number.
Oh, and finally, Golden Ages would work differently under this. A golden age
would be brought on by certain conditions in your empire, such as a powerful
economy and such, and would vastly increase the critical point for the
instability number (so that it's pretty difficult to collapse during a golden
age). However, when it ends you've got to watch out - if you've expanded beyond
the point where the critical point normally is, the end of a golden age will
result in the collapse of your empire. However, golden ages don't have a fixed
time (like 20 turns)
-skywalker
Conclusion
Well, I guess that about does it. The general consensus on Civilizations seems
to be for Firaxis to either give players more Civilizations or for Firaxis to
let people modify their civilizations more... Along with a substantial lobby for
'Dynamic-Civilizations' that develop based upon starting position and what the
player tends to utilize most in his/her game.
For example, the English wouldn't have been good 'natural' seafarers if they
were stranded inland.
Therefore, players hope that civilizations develop skills based upon what
they tend to use- much like how characters in RolePlaying games such as Arcanum
(for the computer) and White Wolf/Vampire:The Masquerade (for pen and
paper) evolve based upon player decisions and preferences.
In addition, the general trend on the wishlist is for more customizability and
modability... Generally more 'player-friendliness'
Personally, I would be happy if the company kept the Civ-List at 32, or even
if it downscaled it to 24... but only if the dynamic option for civilization
growth and the modification option for civilization growth were implemented.
Also, there seems to be a good-sized lobby to bring back the dual-gendered
rulers for graphical rendered images.
Immigration/Emigration was an intriguing system that should be looked at.
And Minor Civs were also quite popular as were the Civil Wars and
Civilization-Splitting.
The suggestion of Nomadic Civs by Spiffor was an intriguing one that
could perhaps be added in part. The general consensus on the Nomadic
Civilizations idea was that although many would "prefer the developers to spend
their time making the overall game richer than adding an extra bit to the
start." (Plotinus), that they did actually enjoy the concept of nomadic
civs.
Indeed, perhaps some of the nomadic traits and ideas could be adapted into
Barbarian Civilizations. Who knows?
Also, the idea of Colonies could be used to combat ICS (Infinite-City-Sprawl)
problems. If the colonies, for example, contributed toward corruption costs but
couldn't grow beyond certain sizes or produce certain items, and yet proved
useful to the player in harvesting resources in certain areas, then they would
fit a nice civ-game niche.
There were also a few innovative ideas for the functioning of rulers.
Thank you for taking the time out of your busy schedules to consider this humble
list.
Respectfully Compiled: DarkCloud
|
|
