I don't find games very compelling when the US starts in 4000 BC alongside Sumeria, Egypt, India, and China, and Germany and the Aztecs and the Zulu, etc.

This may be difficult to implement but if I were civKing I would at least like an option to match history with my civ along the lines of Test of Time but with more options. The US starts in 1776 with Britain, France, China, etc. active already but with eastern cities and an open frontier (ARW scenario separate). India starts in 4000 bc when only a few civs are active, with others joining as time goes. There are overlap problems once play commences but I don't want to recreate history, just the opposite. Start under more accurate historical conditions, then play and see what happens.

Sorry if this is a stale suggestion made 10 times 10 months ago.

I like the idea but ONLY as an option. It should be able to be turned on and off. It would be great for Scenarios too.

i like what your suggesting but i agree with KabeDerkin that it should be turned off and on

but one question would you have to fight in some cases to start ie American Revoultion

ignoreing my last comment America starts in 1781 not 1776 (1781 was when we became a country, 1776 was when we declared independence)

Keep in mind that the Civ series is historically authentic, not historically accurate. Part of the charm of this game is 'what if'.... if you're locked into starting as America in 1776, well, that cripples the 'what if' concept.

But it would make an excellent scenario.

This sounds like a set of time-based world scenarios. Allow people to start at specific points in history, with the world set up to look like it did at that time. Maybe only include the 8 or 10 most important civs at that time (or make it a function of map size).

Maybe something for a fourth CIV 3 expansion (which I am now officially campaigning for, against all odds, after having just learned that we could easily still be 2 years away from a CIV 4 release...)

The only way I could see that implemented would be in a scenario. Besides, the main pull of Civ is the idea of matching famous empires against each other from the start.

[ad]Deleted/ad]

CivCube - warned....you know better than that.
Please keep it to your sig. ;)

Where did you learn that Civ IV could still be 2 years away?

I suppose it would be interesting, provided you could turn it on and off. But, basically, why have "historical" entry dates, if none of the rest of the game adheres to history? It seems somewhat arbitrary.

I'm not sure if they could implement that successfully (given the current nature of the game). Imagine, if you will: America enters the game at 1781. What units/techs/cities do they start the game with? Do they simply start with a Settler and a Worker? If so, the historical "entry" date becomes largely meaningless. How do they contend with already established Civs (Britain, France, China, Russia, Japan, etc, etc)?

-V

If you have historical entry dates, wouldn't you also need historical exit dates? I'm sure that would change some players' strategies if they know they can't be Aztec clear through 2050.

If you have historical entry dates, wouldn't you also need historical exit dates? I'm sure that would change some players' strategies if they know they can't be Aztec clear through 2050.

Good point and a prime example of why this should not even be considered for the epic game.

i can only see this working if it was a world development scenario as if you started a game (your way) and all land was covered by existing civs, then when it comes to 1781 where would america go? just take half of britain's territory? however if it was a world scenario with the same landscape as real life then there could be certain guidelines implaced to stop colonisation of future civs like america.it would still be difficult to include i think

Maybe the game should start with separate "continents", isolated from each other and then at certain points in the game they should "meet", a bit like Columbus discovering America or Marco Polo going to China. I never liked how you could have met everyone on the map ("on the world") so early in the game - you never got "the New World". At least that way you wouldn't have the problem of deciding where and how the new additions would start.

thats a good idea actually if u start off with a small map for example of the eurasian plate and then in like 1587 (my histories poor) text could come up explainin columbus' voyage and america appears as the map boundary expands.the same could be done with australia and others...

Test of Time and others have already done this. The US starts in 1781 (not 1776, I stand corrected, a 1776 start would be an ARW scenario) with the cities it actually had. In other words, if you want to play the US, you start when the US actually started as the US actually started in the world the US actually faced. Eastern coastal cities, some small inland cities, an unclaimed frontier, Indians, European meddling, Canada to the north, etc. Same for Sumeria, same for India, same for Germany, same for Mongols, etc. The what if part is tied much more closely to history: can you succeed, what would you do differently in the actual environment faced by the founders of that civ.

I don't see the link to forcing countries to exit; that's in control of the player. The difference is there is no action by any player that can cause the US or most of the other civs to be founded in 4000bc and doing so takes us far away from what most civilizations/empires actually have been.

The only real drawback is that you can't match up later civs (like Zulus) with earlier ones which died off (like Carthage). But when we take the civs out of their historical context all we're really matching up is their characterics and UU.

An off-on button for this would be ideal.

I think that it is HIGHLY UNLIKELY they would implement you idea. Sure it makes sense if you always play in a world map. Unless civ4 implaments civil war there would never be a US. Then it is the problem with the dates. In some of my games, I'm already building railroad by 250 AD.

I do not like the idea of tying entrances/exits to history. I do like the idea of incoroporating a lot more entrances and exits. Here are a couple key points before I continue:

1) Nations that experience rapid expansion under great leaders usually do not stay united.
2) A land or sea divide will usually lead to extreme seperatism.
3) Nations that rise will eventually fall.

Now for mechanics and how this will affect play. One, nations will split a lot more. When this occurs, you get the option of deciding which side you will continue on with. On your overall scoresheet, the fact you raised a great empire and spawned several others will be noted.
Relative power would be an important part of determining when civs would start to fracture. If you start having a regular rise in relative power over a certaint ime, the computer would form a curve around that rise. This curve would set in place certain events as your time started to wane. Part of your empire which are not like your core(different ethnicities, wealthier, poorer, part of a dead or neighbor civilization) would start succeding. You could decide whether or not to be the rebels, or the main government. Then you decide whether to try to hold on, compromise, or let them split. Eventually, assuming nothing outside has major effect, what's left of the central government will evolve into a new civ.

Seperated territories would at first be very loyal to the homeland. Over time, as generations become native, the locals would no longer associate the colonizers as the homeland. They would start making demand of autonomy and such. Eventually they would try to split, and might make it. Here you would again have the choice of becoming the colony.

If you take over a bunch of coutnries in a relatively small amount of turns, it will be assuemd there was a great dynasty or ruler. You even get to name him/her and give them a short history. Soon, the family or ruler dies and your empire splits. Splits would not be that all the civs return to roughtly where they were before the conquests. Here you would choose which micro-empire to command.

If you are conquered, you can choose to wait till you can be revived. The game will play at hyper-speed, until an appropriate succession, split, would allow you to re-enter. You may even get a few options on who to revive as. Cultural saturation is important here.

This way when your doing badly you won't always be down. Also, empires will rule for hundreds of years, but eventually be replaced by their successors. Your overall effect on the world would matter.

Where did you learn that Civ IV could still be 2 years away?

My comment about two years is based on a comment by someone on another thread, forget who, who said that we're talking about a release in late 2005 at the earliest, but realistically it could take signficantly longer. Sounds like "easily 2 years" to me (though I admit this is how vicious rumours get started...)

Yeah...that's the general consensus that we won't see this any earlier than October, 2005 (since civ seems to be released in October)...could be much later.

Myself, I would much rather see them take the time to do it right then rush it out the door. Patches are to be expected (you simply can't take everything into consideration) but most, if not all, of the flaws should be worked out by then.

Yes, but if it looks like its going to be well into 2006, I wish they'd hire a contractor and do a 4th expansion to come out, say, next spring. But I'm just singin' into the wind...

If this idea come true then you would only be able to start as Egypt, Sumeria(?), India and China. There was no Germany at 4000BC. nor there were Aztecs(the Mayas came first) or Zulus; they could be considered nothing but barbarians.

Are you referring to my idea, or the one about sticking to when civs existed in history? I liked the idea of entrances and exits, just not those tied to any particular history. I would like to see the emergance of civs at different points. It would make Civ feel more like an experience then a game that way.

Both.

I do like it too(your ideam, Sir Shwick) But it would seem really awkard in a random map. OTOH it would be great in scenarios like the test of time.