I always wondered how Civilization would work if you had competing factions with a nation to deal with. For example in South Africa, English, Afrikaners, Zulu, Xhosa, etc. and maybe you could even partition or move groups to different parts of the nation.
I think i get what your saying, like how civ4 will name barbarian villiages like "cherokee" or "goth" to correspond to minor cultures. Or how on greekworld senerio there were the "minor civs" you were always at war with. I think putting minor cultures in the game to represent these sorts of things, but always at war with, world be a good idea.
Maybe even once countries advance to democracies they could grant voting rights to certain groups. Or expel one ethnic group and they become a barbarian army?Originally Posted by Floating Pants
Perhaps we could call them other civilizations, instead of minor. The idea that the Cherokee, which many believe to be as old as the 13th century, is a minor civilization is a little silly.
I prefer the idea of being able to be any civilization. But I dream big.
I agree, Zulus, other primitive South Africans, primitive Northern Americans (not Mesoamericans, like Mayans, maybe excluding Sioux and Iroquis) and primitive Australians should be barbarians, not nations. It is pathetic that they give ours Zulus, instead of Nubians for example. Are not Makurian defence more heroic, and Merkurios better, than Shaka Zulu? I really suggest someone to play Europe Universalis: Deus Vult and trying to defend from Caliphate as Nubians... Other civilisations can be Moors, Ethiopians, Malinese, Songhays, Berbers, but not damn primitive Zulus!
Second, it is really ugly to have Ottomans next to culturally close Seljuks, or Gokturks (as I have in Civ 3), or even Saxons versus Germans, they should delete many nations from barbarians.
Barbarian kingoms, like Goth one, or Hunnic (they are not savages, even have towns in China) are far more civilised (mainly because previously serving Romans), only minor barbarians should be included.
Last edited by Imp. Caesar Leo Augustus; 02-21-2010 at 02:40 AM.
I think Civ (or was it Call to Power?) already had a feature where if you took control over an enemy city the initial population would be of their culture and you had to 'breed them out' (as it were) if you wanted to get production as normal. IIRC it applied to culture-generation as well.
Taking that to the extreme by introducing different sub-cultures (for lack of a better word) in the 'big' civilizations would make the game needlessly complex. You'd probably would spend so much time trying to keep your nation from tearing itself apart that there'd be no time left to invade others.
ie :
Invading other civilizations is what creates those 'minor' civilizations within yours. There's no need to add such features at the start, although it would be interesting scenario if you had the option to start as 'a nation divided'.
The idea of 'minor civilizations' also sounds a bit too silly (and a bit racist TBH). In fact IMHO all barbarians and similar villages should be allowed to upgrade to cities and perhaps even switch to 'regular' civilization-rules after a while (provided they haven't been conquered that is).
btw : One of the Civ 4-expansions (Warlords?) allowed for part of your nation to rebel and form its own civilization (sounds familliar).
One thing to keep in mind however is that Civilizations should be considered abstract concepts and used as such.
It makes it easier to give them a 'character' that even non-historians can understand. That's why we've got a generic Russian, Germany, England, etc.
That's why Africans only get Zulu (although an additional culture would be nice) and not one of the less popular tribes/nations.
The game barely has enough characteristics to create distinct civilizations for the ones that are in the game as is.
There's a reason a game like "Europe Universalis" has an even smaller audience than Civ-series ...
I've heard of a feature that may be in Civ V called "city-states" maybe these could be the small subgroups you want/are talking about?
Man.......I' m not sure you perfectly get the essence of democracy. I don't like seeing what some may call "minor civilizations" reduced to barbarians knowing only war. Why not replace them by city-states as someone said? Some could be very aggressive.
So are we talking about rebellion or secession of frustrated minorities within your civ, or more like increased unhappiness and/or unhealthiness, like Civ IV conquered cities with the "We yearn for the Motherland" unhappiness modifier?
Internal stability, political unrest and such is very loosely modelled in the core game, because it is an essential part of history... but to take it to the extreme, while trying to avoid micromanagement, would be tricky... not to mention such factors as the deposition of your "royal family", assassination attempts on your leader's life, etc...
Mali and Ethiopians?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote