Here's a thread to brainstorm how the Rise and Fall of civilizations can be achieved. Whatever floats your boat - it's a brainstorm. I believe that something should be done to the mod as it is, because right now, the determinism seriously affects the player's behavior. The example I give is that, as Rome, there's no reason to expand heavily into Spain, France, or Germany, because you know you will eventually lose, or have to fight those areas.

So what can be done to make the player unsure, and thus offer more, real, interesting options for a historical game?

Here's some ideas of mine:

Make the spawn date semi-random. Spain could appear at any turn between 600-800.

Create a bigger list of civs, of which only a certain number can appear. In proto-modern Europe, add, say, Portugal, Holland, Austria, Poland, the Vikings. Germany has a 90% chance of appearing, Poland has a 40% chance, etc.

Have the new empire spawns be event-triggered. If Rome has a city in Spain, and if the city is captured by barbarians (Vandals) then the Spanish civ will be spawned. OR, once a city in Spain achieves a self-sufficient size, and becomes unhappy, within a certain turn date, that causes a revolution.

Attach it to techs. Have Arabia spawn, for example, when Divine Right is researched.

Have Civs spawn where there's space. If Rome doesn't move into Germany, then the Germans spawn much earlier (400 AD?)

Have the new empire spawns be event-triggered. If Rome has a city in Spain, and if the city is captured by barbarians (Vandals) then the Spanish civ will be spawned. OR, once a city in Spain achieves a self-sufficient size, and becomes unhappy, within a certain turn date, that causes a revolution.


Have Civs spawn where there's space. If Rome doesn't move into Germany, then the Germans spawn much earlier (400 AD?)

I like these ideas. The current system is too restrictive indeed, now playing as the Romans I had no interest in Europe because I knew I'd lose it, so I conquered Africa. :rolleyes:

I don't really see why you guys are so afraid of the spawning civs. Its not really that hard to hold onto a city if you put your mind to it, especially as the Romans.

I don't really see why you guys are so afraid of the spawning civs. Its not really that hard to hold onto a city if you put your mind to it, especially as the Romans.

It feels like cheating. I know when and where the spawn will come, what it will affect, and how I can avoid it by stocking troops just outside the spawn area. I'd like to make it much more 'fog-of-war'.

A little more unpredictability in the rise/fall couldn't hurt.

about unpredictability:
in Europe - should it always be that first come Spain, then France and so on?

I guess that some variablity here would greatly improve gameplay for Rome and Greece
- though it would be against history somewhat...

I imagine a time zone for each European new civ like 750-900 for Spain, 800-950 for France and so on...
so certain combinations of birth order of civs could be possible with different chance...

[...]I imagine a time zone for each European new civ like 750-900 for Spain, 800-950 for France and so on...
so certain combinations of birth order of civs could be possible with different chance...
I like the idea of civs spawning between two centuries.

I think the eras dating system can help making the civ appareance more unpredictable. As you don´t know the exact year, you don´t know exactly when they will appear... Personally I found the eras dating system much better, as I don´t constantly check the year to see what´s going to happen or comparing my progress with real history.

I would like to see civs spawn earlier rather than later, myself, so I'd make Spain anywhere from 500-800.

Elhoim, it's an interesting idea, but then what would trigger a civ spawning? X number of turns?

It´s using the new system in 0.93. It only hides the years, and civs will appear as normally. The spawn were always triggered by number of turns, the years is something cosmetic. The eras do not show the years, so you don´t know exactly how far the civ are from spawning. Right now the eras go away with calendar, but I want them over the years.

I think that religion spawning civs (ie: Arabia) should always start in a specific turn, creating more realism. In the time where rather insignificant civs like say Mongolia should start between two eras.

I have a lot of respect for the initiative that has been taken and the work that, all the people who are involved in this project, put into it. However I must say that I am rather skeptical about the method that is being used to calculate the genesis of a new civilization. I think that Arkaeyn has made some very astute and valid points and I hope that this post will get more attention so this issue can be discussed further.

First of all I do not really understand why people think having a civilization start at an exact year is historically correct. It is certainly not realistic from a historical perspective. One must look at the cause of why a new civilization emerges, and I can say with certainty that it is not because of the year, "Oh it is 395 AD. Better make room for The Byzantine Empire!" but because of factors like civil and political instability.
If one should simplify the cause of such a revolution one could create an index that calculates things such as unhappiness, distance from capitol, loss in war and such and let those factors be the cause of the revolution. I do not think you should sacrifice sensibility and realism for some artificial historical accuracy.

Jdog5000 is composing a MOD that deals with this feature, and it might be a good source for inspiration for the people involved with this MOD:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=171127

Another source of inspiration could be a work made by Arnold J. Toynbee called A Study of History that deals with the rise and decay of civilizations using a hypothesis. This could be used to determine the factors that cause fall of one civilization or a birth of another. More information below:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Study_of_History

The fall of one civilization, or a part of that civilization, means the possible rise of another. The method is what is important. Using an arbitrary or vacuous method to cause a birth of a civilization would break the game. Sorry if I am blunt, but this is my indictment. Good luck to those who are involved.

Quijote, your comment is well taken, but as you can see in this forum, nobody actually thinks the current Rise and Fall system is perfect. This project is still a work in progress, and although highly playable and enjoyable, it should not be treated as a final product. The best way to get tweaks in is to propose very concrete solutions to the problem you wish to solve. If you can give a precise formula that's much better than getting into an extensive discussion of factors and causes, because there is just so much discussion going on here that you won't get much attention and effect if all you do is add more unfocussed discussion. You must realize nobody here is going to read A Study of History in the near future just for the purpose of this project, so if you have read it and have pragmatic conclusions to contribute as a result, that would be most welcome.
To respond more directly to your comments, I think civilizations should spawn at random or nearly at random in a certain range of years, but this mod can only be so realistic. We cannot possibly mirror the infinite field of possibilities that is reality. No matter how much we try, we will still be limited to alternative histories that run all too similar to our own real history. To fill the game with civilizations we have to always spawn civilizations from one static list of real historical civilizations, although some cultures that never reached epic magnitude in reality may be more appropriate possibilities for rising stars of civilization at certain crossroads in the development of the historical situation. Since spawning is and must remain arbitrary, we can't get incredibly far making spawns historically realistic.

A range of birth years would certainly improve the mod. More variation for civs like Mongolia and less for Arabia, no need to be uniform.

Also, I am not sure if this was changed in the most recent versions, but when a civ collapses via barbarians, do all of the cities remain standing? The more cultured cities should, but the small cities should crumble.

The two methods of civ collapse are pretty well tuned, but perhaps we can conjur up a third method... while we're brain storming.

I don't mind all but the first three civs having a semi-random start date. History is all well and good, but a fun and constantly changing game seems better. Besides, wouldn't a report like, "Whoa! Greece, Rome AND Spain were all founded right on time! :eek:" be cool? And why must Arabia have a more static start date? Is the founding of Islam tied in with the specific date? Sorry, but with all the ideas floating around, I tend to forget which are actually in the game. :blush:

SilverKnight

Okay, good point. I would rather have the start of Arabia be timed with the start of Islam (or vice versa) than be specific to the year 622.

Perhaps for spawning, spawn certain civs in certain eras. No specific order.
Greece, Rome, Persia, Japan, 2000BC-500BC
Spain, France, Germany, England, Mali, Russia, Arabia, Mongols, Inca, Aztecs 500AD-1500AD
America 1500AD-1700AD

Maybe even China, India, and Egypt could have staggered starts.

Some variablility perhaps in the spawning centers may also be nice, but we can't give too much variability... it should still resemble an alternative history.

EDIT: one thing of note is that granting technologies and units to new civs will certainly need to be more dynamic... but I'm sure that can't stop us.

Haha, ok, I think we need to rename this whole forum the "It's Easier Said Than Done! (and Rhye's Mod)" Forum. :lol:

Remember, the last time I checked, only Rhye was actually implementing these things. Every suggestion we put out would require time and hard work to actually see through, so unnecessarily complex game mechanics should be avoided if possible, or replaced with simple things.

Just more of my :commerce::commerce:.

SilverKnight

oh yeah, i am definitely in favour of adding netherlands and portugal, if there was any way to do it. a game so depending on colonisation must have these two countries!

Personally I found that with the eras system you can achieve similar results, unless you know exactly the turn the civ will appear, and you make an active search for it. But if you just play, instead of PowerPlay, it helps a lot.

Here's a simple one. Every time a new Civ spawns, it's randomly at war with one of its neighbors.

It should be random, otherwise it might appear too deterministic. But really, I can't see a problem worse than the anemic rise and fall we have now. Imagine the Mongols spawning at war with Russia, Persia, or China. Arabia at war with Persia or Egypt. England with Spain, France, or Germany. Since the AI doesn't oppose flips, I think something like this may be necessary.

Sorry for this, but I don't understand any more which are the conditions of falling.

They have changed some times, and i can't keep the record.

Could someone help me?

Here's a simple one. Every time a new Civ spawns, it's randomly at war with one of its neighbors.

It should be random, otherwise it might appear too deterministic. But really, I can't see a problem worse than the anemic rise and fall we have now. Imagine the Mongols spawning at war with Russia, Persia, or China. Arabia at war with Persia or Egypt. England with Spain, France, or Germany. Since the AI doesn't oppose flips, I think something like this may be necessary.


Just bumping this, since the 19th message in a thread tends to get lost.

Spain is at war with Rome or... Greece?

I see that the Mongols can semi-efficiently conquer an enemy if all of the starting Keshiks are thrown at them. On the other hand some civs would not benefit from a war: Greece attacks Egypt? Incas, Aztecs.

The idea is good but should not be a blanket requirement for each civ. I also agree that for any civ that does initiate a war upon spawning, it should be random. If the Goths, Parthians, and Franks conquered (or attempted to conquer) Rome, I'd be happy.

Personally, I'm in favor of allowing civs to be generally feeble (where 2 against 1 usually wipes the '1' off the face of the Earth); and allow these civs to respawn later. Although, while seeing the Persians rebuild their empire time and again, it would be generally biased against humans. Human players don't get a 2nd chance, right?

Spain is at war with Rome or... Greece?

I see that the Mongols can semi-efficiently conquer an enemy if all of the starting Keshiks are thrown at them. On the other hand some civs would not benefit from a war: Greece attacks Egypt? Incas, Aztecs.

The idea is good but should not be a blanket requirement for each civ. I also agree that for any civ that does initiate a war upon spawning, it should be random. If the Goths, Parthians, and Franks conquered (or attempted to conquer) Rome, I'd be happy.

Personally, I'm in favor of allowing civs to be generally feeble (where 2 against 1 usually wipes the '1' off the face of the Earth); and allow these civs to respawn later. Although, while seeing the Persians rebuild their empire time and again, it would be generally biased against humans. Human players don't get a 2nd chance, right?


I think certain civs would be kind of pointless, you're right. The first 5 (India, China, Egypt, Greece, Rome) certainly don't need it.

In the case of Spain, it might be best to make the four western european civs spawn at the same time, so they might be at war with Rome, or each other.