Culture mix system and fully crowded map from the start (final expression - at last!)

Culture mixing system

Why? :

• To give, through civilizations merging, another mean for every civilization to expand and gain power, other than bare expansion (limited) and bare conquest (that needs power already). No less!

• To allow rebellions.

• To add a cultural dimension to diplomacy

How? :

>>> Culture would influence every city around and more, depending on its strenght, communication networks (roads, railroads, sea, ocean, rivers...) and open borders. This influence will jump from cities to cities and grow with time. So that two neighbour cultures will end up to be pretty the same.
This way, two culturally identical civilizations could merge in one easily. This constitutes an alternate way to gain power, other than bare expansion and conquest.

>>> Also, if a conquered civilization is too much different culturally from the conqueror, rebellions could result in the conqueror side at conquered locations, and would give another challenge to the player, or give him another mean to fight against the other civilizations.

>>> Cultures that are mixed up each others would be more enclined to take decisions togethers, like enter in war or trading. It would, or precisely it could, improve the diplomatic relations between two civs.

Fully crowded map from the start

We know that Cro-Magnon colonized the whole Earth at 35000 BC. (I think) So it is not unrealistic to see a fully crowded map from the start. Anyway, Civ4 already represents this with the goody huts and barbarians. But it does not influence much the expansion, when it should more IMO.

Why? :

• To allow a lot more culture mixing and more rebellions/alliance possibilities that there would be with the actual very small number of civilizations: a dynamic game

• To allow another way of expansion

• To multiplicate early fights and make the expansion really tough

How? :

>>> With a fully crowded map from the start, there will be cultural factions within every civ. Those entities will be important to disturb the game and create rebellions, as well as offer a greater possibility of alliances. Please note that the "entities" in question are not automatically civilizations. They can be "Goody Civs", or only "Culture Centers" (kind of blank civilizations with only a culture)

>>> By alliance of affinities (cultural mainly), two civs or entities could merge: another form of expansion other than settling or warring. Optional: (depending on what are the "entities" exactly), possibility to expand without the need of a settler. A city may pop up on an influenced square and be gifted to your civilization, or an existing city could be quickly converted.

>>> A map fully crowded by some kind of faction or another (see my "Goody Civs" post and others "barbarians huts" ideas) would for sure bring some more action and challenge of any kind, particlarly fights, that we know a little from barbarians already, and culture influence.

some, yes. Fully crowded, absolutely not.

Just because the whole earth was colonzied, does NOT mean they were all organized into civilizations, and does NOT mean that the only way the civilizations could expand was through war. "making a settler" was done numerous times throughout the course of history, and fully crowding the map just makes it seem like all anyone did was kill their neighbors.

Also, the "whole world colonized" doesn't mean that every square mile was used. NO WAY near that. Think about it, currently we have multiple billion people on the planet, and we STILL don't use every mile. Overcrowded the map would not be a realistic solution. More likely, when historians say "the entire world" they mean that human presence was FOUND in south america, north africa, south africa, ect. Not that it was crowded w/ people every "tile"

Wars were so numerous and like skirmishes through the glasses of History. And - 4000 BC was the time where the Earth was "full" of civilizations. Pyramids have been built before 2000 BC. -35000 BC was the time when Cro-Magnon encountered Neandertal in France, because the weather became better for him. As long as the weather permit it, I believe that the entire Earth was crowded. Of course that does not include deserts, toundras, icelands, and so on... but there is no reason that the human kind to travel so far without going in nay bit of fertile area.

As I said, even Civilization 1, 2, 3 and 4 represents this. How do you explain that barbarians to have the very same warriors than yours? They are truly civilizations. If you want to sound intellectual, the word "barbarian" had just been created by the roman to qualify the others civilizations. But they were there.

The question is, and I did not fully answered to it, how to represent them in Civ? I think there are yet better ways to do it than basic barbarians and 'goody huts'.

Not to mention that such a crowded map would be necessary to allow rebellions to appear in every civ, it is to say: internal disorder.

These are two suggestions I'm very much into.

War already has a large part in the game, it doesn't need to be the only possible way to win that it would be if the "fill the whole earth" idea was used.

I'm happy to see some enthousiasm about this, as this is really what I am expecting the most for a game like Civ.

lost_civantares, I forgot a couple sentences that explain that precisely, war would not be the only way to deal with those factions. I bolded them in the original post.

Plus, that's true that it would enhance war a little bit more, but it would not be big scale war, rather small scale war, which I think is more interesting and less... obnoxious.

All in all with those ideas the game could be pretty more peacefull.

I think everything depends on your definition of 'Crowded'. At the moment, if I am the only 'major civ' in the region, then all I can hope to encounter are barbs (who will want to destroy me) or Goody huts (which will disappear as soon as they are 'popped'). I yearn instead for a system which blurs the line between these two 'groups'.
For instance, I have built my capital, and send out a scout. After much travelling, the scout encounters a small village in the midst of a forest. Now this is not one of the major civs (like Spain or China), but the Olmec people.
Now, in the current game, such a village would ensure that fighting was on the cards. It still might, in this hypothetical, depending on the how aggressive the village is and how I go in diplomacy. If all goes well, I might be able to peacefully integrate the Olmec people into my civ, and possibly get a neat bonus into the bargain-like a free tech, a UB or UU, or a bonus to my commerces or yields. Even if I conquered the Olmec (without destroying them) I will get the village, but perhaps without the 'free gift'. Now that would be something worth having in the game, and the evolution of the Civ Barbarians seems to be pointing in that direction-or so it seems to me!

Aussie_Lurker.

Well Aussie, it appears that your Olmecs would be pretty near a civ, except that you could integrate them peacefully... like culturally for example.

You said everything depends of the definition of 'crowded'... as I said, I did not answer to the question: what form would take such population? I'm going into a form near the normal civilization... or only 'cultural center' on the map as I mentioned in another topic... (but the disadvantage is that you can't battle with cultural centers though)

As for your "goody barbarians", I don't see why they should give you tech and money and maps when they give you cities already. Probably it should be the one or the other. But I think I see the concept: you want to mix up the concept of goody hut and barbarians, and make the interactions more intense and interesting... this is a good point.