civilizations EVOLVE into others

Greetings.
Here is my idea.

Something that annoys me in Civ is the lack of preciceness on some things. They are perfectly accurate on technologies and units and wonders. But this game fails for the lack of attention to what matters most, the civilizations.

I guess it's fun to be the Americans on the year 5000BC, Washington with a funny looking hat. But that's... ridiculous to say the least. That's why I allways play with ancient civs, because it's just not realistic to see Americans roaming around with spears. It's just not their style

So I thought. Obviously that the Americans is a civilization that just cannot be removed from this game(I'm not American) so what to do...

The title of this thread - Civilization Evolution.
(I don't know much of American history so I'll give an example with a Civilization that I'm familiar with but which actually doesn't need this idea because it's one of the oldest civilizations around, the Portuguese)

My idea is basically to start with the roots of each current civilization and thru time you have the chance to change the name of civilization and leader or not.

So with Portugal you would start the game with the Iberians which can evolve to Iberian Celts and from here to Lusitans or Hispanics and finally from here to Portuguese or Spanish.

America would problably start with indigenous tribes, to native Northern or Southern Americans to Confederate States, United States or Canadians.

Something like this. It would have to have a lot of study of course but I think it would make the Civ franchise absolutely perfect and true to History.
Because America in 5000BC is just not working.

What say you?

Hmmm... cool.. the changes could be influenced by the different era's you go in

Exactly. Also when you discover a technology, or discover another civilization as basically the Portuguese are a mix of Iberians, Pheonicians, Celts and Greeks.

But I guess it's something only to think for Civ 5.

When I play Rome, I want to Play as Rome; not Italy.

When leader changes the relations with all civs become neutral and changed leaders can sign peace treaties with the civ with which the earlier leader was in dispute. Obviously, the player will be the leader thru out but by changin leader in games one gets a chance to imrpove if he has totally screwed up!! Eg. germany after Hitler is a peace loving and prosperous nation and shares good relationsship with USA, UK, France.

Xen!!

I entirely agree!! My point is before Romans being Romans they were something else, but once you reach Rome you can just stick with it till the end of the game.

The Architect. Exactly. You've enhanced my idea, with the change of leader or civilization a person can change strategy, a huge militaristic enterprise like the Germans with Hitler and then change to a Industrial power house.

Of course these changes would have to be well controlled and you wouldn't be able to change leader just like that and when you change there is no turning back.

I totally agree with you all...
This will definitely enhance the realistic dimension of the game.

No, I dislike this idea, the point with having civs that dont exist anymore is the "whatif" dimension of it all. If there was a predestined evolution built nto civ it wouldnt be as fun.

Well, the game is called Civilization!!
So far the only thing which wasn't updated was the civs. Mor etechnologies, more units and more graphism. But no dynamics surrounding Civilizations.

I would very much like to have something like this. Not just for the realism but for the new experience. With an idea like this the Firaxis team could transform it into something really interesting I'm sure.

I made this suggestion me too, I think it isn't somuch a good idea. Like that guy qho proposed Mussolini as ROme leader...

This is a good idea but you are going to have to live with America in 4000BC because we are not just evolved form of the Natives but rather most desendants of Europeans, most obviously English. Also the Confederates came after the formation of the US and only last 5 or 6 years.

Also to make it more historic, get rid of America and return revoultions\Civil Wars and have America form if England has a Civil War or Revoultion. but thats off topic so i will stop there

Great Idea! I always thought so. In scenarios, they should have someway that civs can "Declare Independence" so that way the Europeans can colonize all of the African civs, and all the North and South American civs. The Incas declare independence from Spain as the Peruvians, the Aztecs declare independence as the Mexicans, the Iroqois declare independence as the Canadians, etc, and a new civ, the rebelious Americans declares independence. You see what I'm saying? That way, we can have colonialization (spelling?) where entire continents are conquered, and then the natives can declare independence!

I've always wanted that too.

Distance from capital, add bad management and maybe influence from foreign culture/religion/ could cause revolts were a leader will appear within your civ to challange your postion. The options a seperate state, war, appeasement.

It could be added maybe as a diplomacy option so that civs can incite cival war and/or back up independance claims once made. So you'd have more than a few rebels to crush some of the time and could end up having no choice but to grant them independance if you just can't afford or are unable to get into a major war.
Or the other civ(s) could provide them with money and weapons without actually declaring war.

I don't know how many cities would come under this new nation.
Maybe the one city were the rebel leader appears could spread revolt in the same way as culture and religion to other cities and other civs could send spies to certain citys to help spread propaganda, maybe pay money to promote the spread of the rebel leaders indepedance 'culture' to nearby cities from his unoffical capital.

Population type of cities would play a big role too.

Exactly what I was saying! One of my least favorite things on civ was having 1 civ, from the other side of the world conquered, and never declaring independence, and comming back. This could be an option in a predesigned scenario, and an option when you set up the game. I always had my civs respawned, but they always start out with the normal, settler, and worker, while the surviving civs already have empires. I think the rebelions in the colonies should start with the civ's former capital before they were conquered, and they also start out with lots of units, and try to conquer their old cities back, or in the case of rebelious colonists, like the Americans, start with a random city on the colonized continent, and try to take as much land as you can, that way the British can keep Canada, until they rebel. Almost every Civilization in history has been conqured, and then rose up to declare independence, so I will be dissapointed if they leave this out in the next version of Civ.

I also want to see barbarians capture, or even found cities, like they did in the first Civilization. Maybe even oneday become a new civ, if they captured cities. Long after a successful barbarian nation has been conquered, they can declare independence with a few starting cities.

Kick ass guys, I love everything said here. I have thought about this since CIV3 first came out. I always wanted the schism effect from CIV2 to carry over among other things about which you are talking about. I will break it down to separate ideas:

(bear the mind the possiblity of turning it off, for those who don't like it.)

1. Evolving city names I love nothing more as I travel Europe and read about how some modern day cities started out as say, a Roman outpost. For example, Vienna (in German, Wien) was once a Roman provincial capital called Vindobona, named for the Vinid tribe of the Celts. Depending on which culture or language of the civ that owns a city it's name might change.

2. Naming landmarks Based on what was mentioned above, this might require also the ability to name rivers or other geographical features. For example, the city Reykjavik comes from the "Smokey Bay" on which it was founded, which is what it means.

3. The possibility of Schism I loved the idea of an empire dividing as a results of reaching it's limits (like OCN) or it's captial being taken, such as in CIV2, in RL like Berlin's occupation, dividing Germany or the Western and Eastern Roman Empires. But we could go more realistic with colonies declaring independence and having their technology level as developed as the most advanced city in the new country, let's say. As mentioned above, say a civ starts a colony on another continent, perhaps based upon factors such as: happiness, luxuries, MP, civics, culture, riots or civil disorder, the cities having foreign nationals, war weariness, and so on and and on, certain areas or groups of cities could a have a chance of revolting. Maybe a GL such as a revolutionist could appear given the right conditions. He could greatly improve conditions for the parent civ but might lead a colony to a revolution and independence. I wouldn't want to take away the bonus of a religious civ getting a one turn anarchy, but we could do something with a revolutionary GL....perhaps incite propaganda in another civ or at least build an army for the new civ. Without historic examples to help give names to the daughter civ, we could use the name of the geographic region or largest city, for instance.

4. The possibility of granting independence at will or determining borders I have mentioned before about the game Victoria: Empire of the Sun. I really like the idea of colonies, colonial wars (where only war on the colonies occur, not on the home continent of the civs), immigration and emmigration and others things it allows. Also, what about when alliances are used cities can be moved into other civ's borders based on culture and resisitance, etc. I know we have that when negotiating, or culture flips, but what about that being induced by other outside forces? For example, Sopron holding a vote to lease Austria and rejoin Hungary, can be done now, but what about something like was done with the end of the Great Wars when maps were redrawn?

5. Barbarian cities Yes, that would be great. No more pillaging or stealing money, getting invaded would mean something. Perhaps, they get more advanced, the more cities they capture. The Great Wall would actually be important! The barbarian races that one conquered could influence the evolution of the civ.


That's about all I got for now. This would rock.

Awesome!! Looks like this idea is going strong.
Thanks guys for enhancing it from the original idea. Thanks a lot.

... I think it's time we create a Civ V - Ideas & Suggestions thread!!

Or maybe the Firaxis guys could even make this as an expansion!!
I can see it already Civilization 4: Colonization Expansion Pack!!

Now that is something that I would just LOVE!!

Xen said:

When I play Rome, I want to Play as Rome; not Italy.

Click to expand...

I agree, sure it's not realistic that america starts out in 5000 bc, then rename the civilization. The fact that any civilization is founded in 5000 b.c. and stays the same civlization is ludicrus. The persians and ottomans were distinct different civlizations, but inhabited a similer area. I'd rather change history (have the roman empire never fall) then reenact it. That's wahy you have a random map ganerator, you don't want to play on earth every time

Schism/Independence would work, but more as a result of bad culture or unhappiness management. Having America evolve from England would be cool. Simiilarly, having America evolve from the amalgamation of several different Civs's colonies would be fun as well.

Most changes in Civ could be modeled as internal cultural changes, such as a shift in internal politics/castes/factions. Realistically, it happens when you change governments, and the option is up to you to rename cities to reflect that.

Other than that, many historical changes are do to being forced into new management by an outside province/nation. But get a good dynasty going, and a civ could maintain the status quo for a long time.

yeah, that would be a neat and satisfying way of measuring your success, I think.

Well I think a couple changes are needed to do this properly

1. The possibility of 'choosing your side' in a breakup. Assuming that the cities rebelling weren't trying to reform/rejoin some already/previously existing civ you should be able to take over the newly formed civ (so I can start play as England and then figure I'll take over the new colonies when they decide to rebel..they aren't powerful but they have a lot of weaker neighbors)

2. The possibility of merging with a civ to form a new civ (UK from England, Scotland, Wales, and Ireland ...of course any of the previous civs can still rebel, but the population will slowly become part of the new civ, and the English population should not be too unhappy about being dominated by the British as they are well represented by that new civ)... This merger may not even be fully peaceful

3. Recovery, so the Chinese civ can be totally conquered by the Mongols and then 'come back'...or the Greeks can reclaim Byzantium..exactly How this is done would depend on the situation, if the cities rebel against their rulers, then any player could do it...ie the AI Chinese rebel against the Human Mongols, on the other hand if you just want to say that state X is really My Civ, ie Byzantium is Really Greece, then only a Human Greek player could do that, and that would involve no Name change Byzantium would Stay Byzantium with Byzantine picks)

Any of the Breakups or Unifications would include a Required Name change, with New Civ Traits and Leaders. They could be generated from a list, or semi-randomly once the list ran out (Names+Traits are Easy, Leaders might be problematic if they are limited, but then one just prevents the formation of New Civs (Rebelling cities have to join an existing civ, and Unions must be formed by one of the civs that makes them up...presumably the Human one if a Human one is involved)

Whenever you pick a new Civ you should have the option of Choosing the name. (either at the beginning of the game or during the rebellion)