How to make groundbreaking sequels : one vision

Civ2, Civ3, Civ4 nor Civ5 have been groundbreaking IMO. They were just graphic updates for the most part.

But, what do I call "groundbreaking" ? A concept. Civ1 was groundbreaking. It invented the concept of playing a whole civilization from years -4000 to 2000+, recreating the science advancement. This, IS groundbreaking, amazing, mind blowing. Now, I wish the concept is deepened in order to make something more in the line of this, instead of serving again eternally the same tweaked game.

I'm bored of playing Civ ? All right, let's make its attributes shine more relevantly in the next iteration ! It's not about making things slightly-different-but-hugely-the-same, it's about thinking deeply of what makes the concept so great. (I won't say addictive, because "addictive" seems to me a side funny remark good for the off topic forum)

I've said it, IMO the power of the concept is this crossing throughout the ages, scientifically, and also historically. We can represent approximately science history, but events of History are impossible to represent for the most part. And the point would be just to learn History.

What's interesting here is recreating History. You need strong representative existing elements, making them tie in as much as possible. Everything that makes you think you can create your own side story in a parallel world, that seems credible.

So, the more realistic it is, the better. Let's overcome the mechanics of victory. They are not important.

Gameplay ? It in a game is usually what forces you, not what you contemplate.

Naokaukodem said:

Civ2, Civ3, Civ4 nor Civ5 have been groundbreaking IMO. They were just graphic updates for the most part.

But, what do I call "groundbreaking" ? A concept. Civ1 was groundbreaking. It invented the concept of playing a whole civilization from years -4000 to 2000+, recreating the science advancement. This, IS groundbreaking, amazing, mind blowing. Now, I wish the concept is deepened in order to make something more in the line of this, instead of serving again eternally the same tweaked game.

I'm bored of playing Civ ? All right, let's make its attributes shine more relevantly in the next iteration ! It's not about making things slightly-different-but-hugely-the-same, it's about thinking deeply of what makes the concept so great. (I won't say addictive, because "addictive" seems to me a side funny remark good for the off topic forum)

I've said it, IMO the power of the concept is this crossing throughout the ages, scientifically, and also historically. We can represent approximately science history, but events of History are impossible to represent for the most part. And the point would be just to learn History.

What's interesting here is recreating History. You need strong representative existing elements, making them tie in as much as possible. Everything that makes you think you can create your own side story in a parallel world, that seems credible.

So, the more realistic it is, the better. Let's overcome the mechanics of victory. They are not important.

Gameplay ? It in a game is usually what forces you, not what you contemplate.

Click to expand...

I agree: it's time to look hard at the basics of the game. From Civ I to Civ V, the game as progressed in increments from emphasizing almost entirely Technological History to Social, Economic, and Religious History having varying degrees of representation.

BUT the game is still shackled by some 'Civ Constants' and in its historical representation is missing a lot of new information revealed by recent historical and archeological research: we're still playing a game based on 20 year old 'knowledge'!

Let me throw out a few questions/discussion points:

Why do all the changes in religion, government, technology or social policy ('culture') remain under the control of the player? Isn't most of history the record of how governments and nations REACTED to changes in technology or their environment with Social, Cultural, Religious or Political changes?

Why do all resources appear at once? Despite 6000 years of exploration, not ONE new deposit of Gold, Silver, Iron, Copper, etc ever appears? That flies in the face of everything we've experienced in the Real World, and automatically removes from the game such intriguing events as Gold Rushes, conflict over new deposits, or even depletion of resources requiring new technological or military solutions.

Why are all human groups in the game Defined By Their Start? A barbarian camp is always a Barbarian Camp, a City State is Always A City State? They cannot grow, change, ally with each other, ally with a 'civilization' for protection, be paid to oppose another civilization?

- And, to follow up, why are Barbarians so utterly One Dimensional? Historically, 'Barbarians' (non-city-building human groups) were enemies, trading partners, allies, mercenaries, or even potential immigrants. We get only the occasional trace (German Unique Ability) of anything besides Eternal Enemies.

Why has the Tech Tree in Civ always been so completely Linear? Especially with the models of SMAC and Beyond Earth in mind, why not a branching Tech Tree, or one with Major Technologies and Applications of Technologies. And why isn't getting a technological advance more dependent on situation and environment? Imagine 'researching' Horseback Riding when you have no access to Horses? Imagine trying to Avoid researching the Wheel after you've seen someone zoom by on a chariot? The entire procedure for 'getting' technologies needs to be looked at hard and rethought.

Finally, why are the real capabilities and consequences of human actions left out of the game? For centuries we've been tunneling through mountains, digging canals between oceans, bridging shallow seas, leveling mountains by open-pit mining, filling in marshes - and having to deal with changes in animal and fish resources, depletion of resources, pollution of land- and water-scapes, natural and un-natural disasters. Why is NONE OF THAT in the game?

In short, if we want a more constantly interesting, intriguing, In Depth game, the player needs to have the same possibilities, capabilities, problems and decision points that the historical characters we are trying to emulate have.

Finally, as an avid history reader, I'd like to note that the best history written today includes details about the human actions and the effects on individuals of historical events. The game doesn't do that now. Instead of clicking on a unit and moving it, how about if you click on the unit, the face of the unit commander pops up and acknowledges the order! When the battle is won or lost, the General/Commander pops up, covered in sweat and blood, and announces the result to you. In short, put a Human Face on game events and you will improve the historical interest embedded in the game.

Yes, yes, I like it. Your suggestions are all ways to make the game more realistic, although they may lack some direction. (all this seems huge work for a single game)

I'm more entitled in my -4000 to 2000 experience of civilizations : the game is named "Civilization", so we should see more complex and realistic evolution of them in the first place.

Like in Civ5 : 8 civilizations on the map on standard size ??? How could you even dream to represent what was a true civilizations evolution with only 8 set in stone regular civs ?

When you read History books, you are hit by the number of major events considering all the civilizations : the conquests, rises, evolutions, etc. are so numerous that they seem silly as a whole. Just to say : Civ is far from the account !

Additionally from rising dramatically the number of civilizations, we should revise the Victory conditions also to make them less manichean : one should be able to "win" without totally dominating the last tier of a game, maybe by calibrating victory conditions with the known world, the same that is done with the mini-map (you always are in the center of it at start, you don't know in which part of the world you are), so you would have "victory bubbles". They wouldn't be easier to reach because the world would be complex right at start, it's just that it may be slightly smaller and yet. For multiplayer, a victory may count as a point, and when all players have met the one with the most victory points wins. (if tie the game continues !) Victories could be militaristic (all great empires of History), scientific (the Greek golden age), cultural (Chinese cultural expansion), etc. and ideally would all take the same time to achieve. (synergy of (undocumented ?) boosts may help : you may try a new thing but it may not work at 100% every time, so that there may have some "good players for science victory" in multiplayer for example)

Naokaukodem said:

Yes, yes, I like it. Your suggestions are all ways to make the game more realistic, although they may lack some direction. (all this seems huge work for a single game)

Click to expand...

On the contrary, my suggestions, I think, are all aimed in the same direction: to make the game, like history, more Dynamic. To give the player meaningful decisions to make Every Single Turn because the status of the neighboring states, diplomatic climate, natural resources, all are subject to change.

Naokaukodem said:

Like in Civ5 : 8 civilizations on the map on standard size ??? How could you even dream to represent what was a true civilizations evolution with only 8 set in stone regular civs ?

Click to expand...

In a Dynamic Game, in addition to 8 or whatever number of 'starting civs', there might be another 12 - 20 'City States' - some of which might become multi-city Civilizations later in the game. There might be 'Barbarian Camps' which will grow into City States, or band together, conquer a Civilization, and turn it into a brand new Civilization with a completely different Diplomatic/Trade status vis-a-vis your Civilization. No one 6000 years ago could predict what kind of civilizations would dominate the world 2000, 4000, or 6000 years later. You should not be able to in the game, either.

Naokaukodem said:

Additionally from rising dramatically the number of civilizations, we should revise the Victory conditions also to make them less manichean : one should be able to "win" without totally dominating the last tier of a game, maybe by calibrating victory conditions with the known world, the same that is done with the mini-map (you always are in the center of it at start, you don't know in which part of the world you are), so you would have "victory bubbles". They wouldn't be easier to reach because the world would be complex right at start, it's just that it may be slightly smaller and yet. For multiplayer, a victory may count as a point, and when all players have met the one with the most victory points wins. (if tie the game continues !) Victories could be militaristic (all great empires of History), scientific (the Greek golden age), cultural (Chinese cultural expansion), etc. and ideally would all take the same time to achieve. (synergy of (undocumented ?) boosts may help : you may try a new thing but it may not work at 100% every time, so that there may have some "good players for science victory" in multiplayer for example)

Click to expand...

Couldn't agree more. In fact, the definition of 'winning' a game like Civilization should include a wide range of possibilities, including things like how the course of the game went as well as how the game ended. For instance, if a Civilization kept its people Happy and well-fed for 6000 years, but did not dominate the globe militarily, technologically, or politically, is that civilization a failure? I think not, and something like that should be a Victory Option.

And, of course, widening the Victory possibilities also widens the types of play-style that are viable, and therefore increases the unpredictability and dynamism of the game.

Boris Gudenuf said:

Why do all the changes in religion, government, technology or social policy ('culture') remain under the control of the player? Isn't most of history the record of how governments and nations REACTED to changes in technology or their environment with Social, Cultural, Religious or Political changes?

Click to expand...

Remember that Civ is supposed to be a strategy game. Putting to much emphasis on reacting to game events will undermine gameplay.

Why do all resources appear at once? Despite 6000 years of exploration, not ONE new deposit of Gold, Silver, Iron, Copper, etc ever appears? That flies in the face of everything we've experienced in the Real World, and automatically removes from the game such intriguing events as Gold Rushes, conflict over new deposits, or even depletion of resources requiring new technological or military solutions.

Click to expand...

I agree - resources should appear incrementally once the prerequisite technology has been researched (or throughout the game if there is no prerequisite technology). I am very much of the mind that Civ needs to emphasise the control and exploitation of resources, because fundamentally that is what civilization is: a means of acquiring and utilizing resources.

Why are all human groups in the game Defined By Their Start? A barbarian camp is always a Barbarian Camp, a City State is Always A City State? They cannot grow, change, ally with each other, ally with a 'civilization' for protection, be paid to oppose another civilization?

Click to expand...

Indeed, and there were some excellent Civ4 mods which tried to address this issue (e.g. by allowing new civs to spawn from barbarian cities, having "independent" cities that weren't barbarians but weren't full-fledged civilizations either).

Why has the Tech Tree in Civ always been so completely Linear? Especially with the models of SMAC and Beyond Earth in mind, why not a branching Tech Tree, or one with Major Technologies and Applications of Technologies. And why isn't getting a technological advance more dependent on situation and environment? Imagine 'researching' Horseback Riding when you have no access to Horses? Imagine trying to Avoid researching the Wheel after you've seen someone zoom by on a chariot? The entire procedure for 'getting' technologies needs to be looked at hard and rethought.

Click to expand...

I strongly agree that tech development in Civ needs to be more faithful to the notion that "necessity is the mother of invention". In fact I would go even go so far as to say that the tech tree should be virtually abolished: technological development should primarily be about building things and in-game events, and advances of pure science and culture should only be able to be researched (aka "lightbulbed") by Great People.

Finally, why are the real capabilities and consequences of human actions left out of the game? For centuries we've been tunneling through mountains, digging canals between oceans, bridging shallow seas, leveling mountains by open-pit mining, filling in marshes - and having to deal with changes in animal and fish resources, depletion of resources, pollution of land- and water-scapes, natural and un-natural disasters. Why is NONE OF THAT in the game?

Click to expand...

I agree, these features would add a great deal of depth to the game.

Finally, as an avid history reader, I'd like to note that the best history written today includes details about the human actions and the effects on individuals of historical events. The game doesn't do that now. Instead of clicking on a unit and moving it, how about if you click on the unit, the face of the unit commander pops up and acknowledges the order! When the battle is won or lost, the General/Commander pops up, covered in sweat and blood, and announces the result to you. In short, put a Human Face on game events and you will improve the historical interest embedded in the game.

Click to expand...

So long as it doesn't put too much pressure on the system requirements...

I like this thread.
Yeah I'd really like to see civs be able to spread a lot faster in the early game but also collapse or split more easily.
I think that would make for some interesting dynamics. Right now every civ just tends to casually expand until borders touch and then usually not much happens until ideologies.

Redaxe said:

I like this thread.
Yeah I'd really like to see civs be able to spread a lot faster in the early game but also collapse or split more easily.
I think that would make for some interesting dynamics. Right now every civ just tends to casually expand until borders touch and then usually not much happens until ideologies.

Click to expand...

Right now, the early game is seriously biased against anything meaningful happening. Think about it: in the current BNW model, your best source of Gold is trade. But early on, Barbarian camps will plunder most of the trade routes, unless they are extremely short and observable - which means keeping an early gold flow is extremely dependent on the starting position relative to City States and other Civs. In addition, the increased barbarian spawning under BNW means that you will spend most of the first 50 - 100 turns of the game fighting barbarians. Send your army off in one direction, and a camp will spawn just outside your opposite border and start trashing your infrastructure. An early war, except to grab an unguarded worker or settler, simply is not worth the cost.

Now, instead of constant hostile Barbarian Camps, what if the current 'Goodie Huts" AND Barbarian Camps are ALL camps or villages. There's about a 1/3 chance they are hostile (current barbarian model), 1/3 chance they are indifferent (but might be persuaded to trade with you later) and 1/3 chance they are friendly - and a source of raw materials, knowledge or scouting information, trade, population (migrants) or mercenary/allied units. That's the current Goodie Hut model, but with a major plus: they aren't usually destroyed when you meet them, they remain on the map, grow, and perhaps eventually become a City State or part of your Civilization. In the meantime, by providing an extra source of trading partners, they give you the cash and perhaps some of the units necessary to wage an early war.

Given that almost everything new in archeology has added to the extent of human activity in the pre-2000 BC era (Bronze and pre-Bronze Age) the fact that almost nothing happens during that same period in the game except exploration and city founding is a shame, and wastes a bunch of turns.

Of course, we also have to increase the interactivity at the other end of the game, in the 20th century and beyond, but that's partially a product of my earlier post about Reacting to Events. Look at the major events of the last 100 - 150 years, and most of them did NOT come about because some Government (Civ) decided on them. Did Czarist Russia plan to become Communist? Was the Great Depression a planned government event? (Conspiracy Theorists shut up! it's a rhetorical question) Did ANY government in the Middle East plan for the current problems there? Answer to all, NO - but they did result in decisions that had to be made by those Civilizations, problems they had to face, and entirely new directions for history to take.

The Historical Reality has to be toned down: having your civilization collapse because of events beyond your control makes for a truly frustrating game. BUT having everything that happens to your civilization be entirely the product of player (or AI) decisions makes for a very un-historical, and by late-game a very boring game. We can do better for all concerned, but not by treading the same old path in Civilization game design.

Perspectives to take to this question.

By looking through different perspectives at different times, we can measure things in ways that are conflicted on the surface, but we can drill down to find the economical and... good... mediations of those constraints and ideals, and sophisticate the design of the game.

So...

The game is an artistic experience
A game is art, so in some sense it's a craft of something to make a point that can't be made in words. Or a point we don't even know what it is. Games - video games - are a new thing because we are not just making up a sport, here, we can use a computer to make up any darn thing we want. And then it's something the player / consumer acts out, which is a new way of experiencing art.

A game is a simulation
The game has an interface. The players have input over some things, and not other things. Other things, they have to watch happen, and they compete to control that outcome. Two games could cover the same subject matter, but put different loci of control in the hands of the player. One locus could even overbear the other. The game you experience is this interaction with control and the mysteriously controlled.

A civ game tells some historical fiction
Re-examining the history of Humanity, in technology, social development, politics, and environmental exploitation, is always greatly satisfying. That's Civ's brand. Plus the automatic computer personalities.


Notice that the second point is where a lot of freedom is. The designer gets to choose what the game simulates. You can specify some things are automatic, some things are controlled. Some are just random or not. You can specify things that correspond to what makes sense, or make them arbitrary. And you can choose how to model any particular thing you want to "simulate" in the game, with not just different numbers, but choosing just how deeply or grossly you capture it. You get to decide what's relevant to the experience you're creating (which creates the actual art), which is just a individual , judgment call from the designer. And it's not even about doing it well or badly, it's just... the designer being a designer, making something.

***
there's probably others, I ran out of time for now.

I don't know if Civ is an art, but its concept is contemplative for sure. The best video games are IMO. Their gameplay is just there to give us some grain to grind whereas we are thinking to what the game represents, in game, or off game. Those thoughts are usually what gives us the desire to continue to play or not.

Most importantly, we act inside this concept. We start at -4000, find some techs, etc... have interactions with surroundings with those new techs, find more, etc. The concept is at the heart of the gameplay, making us feel really at those eras.

Gameplays should serve to this primarily, not to give us a challenge. Do I really feel i'm in -4000, or does it feel more like a label with no consequence ? Life is here to give us useful challenges. Not video games. However a too easy game can be boring, it's why the best difficulty settings are of average difficulty.

As to being a simulation, I would say Civ5 is not a simulation. (but Civ6 can become one) It's mostly a gameplay crucible where players clash, with no interest whatsoever in a simulation representation (no culturally linked starting locations option).

For some, playing game is for win, Civ is a game where you assume title of immortal ruler and playing a modified Sid Meier's Civilization boardgame. I hardly think Civ20 can be that different from what was collective essence of Civ1-5.

I for one wouldn't mind a game where I start with a village in 4000BC and casually interact with few villages among hundred thousands until became a city-state to interact with few city-state among ten thousands and so on on incrementally larger scale. I don't mind "playing" a game where I decide things and let my civilization grows and adapt to their surrounding. I don't mind a game where there's no Roman or Chinese but an entirely new and original Empire and dynasties.

I just can't imagine that Sid Meier's Civilization the boardgame as it is will cut short their legacy by making an entirely new series and call it Civilization X. It's like asking for Distant Space from the maker of Galactic Civilization or asking for Minecraft from Maxis.

I think it's far more likely to see game like this in the future. It would be developed by other team and will be name something. But it is certainly not Sid Meier's Civilization.

I like this discussion. The focus on historicity could really help Civ- so many interesting game mechanics can be built out of the mechanics of history.

Currently, Civ games begin at 4000 BC and progress to the information era. Winning before this is pretty difficult, unless you can manage to sweep a domination victory. It should be possible to play an entire game of Civ without getting into the renaissance- I doubt anyone would disagree that historical Rome could have claimed at least a few victory conditions in Europe.

In the spirit of aligning with history, I think early game expansion and technology should be altered- a mixture of conquest and alliances built the earliest civilizations. Humans have lived across the globe since before the first cities formed, and settling new lands has more often been about annexing your neighbours rather than settling uninhabited areas (or killing your neighbours and then settling the newly uninhabited areas).

The point about technology is also important. In Civ, being isolated can mean a snowball to space, but in real life it often means more primitive technology because of a smaller pool of needs that were met. Native north american populations didn't achieve the technology that south america and the old world did. Technology traveled rapidly in the ancient world with language and culture. In fact, Civilization actually does the opposite of what would be more historically accurate in some ways- in Civ V, the civil service technology allows agreements for civilians or military units to pass into the territory of another civ. Historically, travelling into another land was far easier. Any merchant of a civilization that enters a foreign city and sees new technology could theoretically import that technology to their homeland, and much quicker and successfully if he spoke the language of the more technologically advanced civilization.

People are always trying to make a buck, and if one civ has technology that another wants (say, economics) it's incredibly likely that the technology would be sold or distributed in a power play or wealth grab by a citizen of the superior civilization. It's the modern day where passports are required to enter another country and technologies are hidden in labs or research facilities, and even then those technologies are quickly distributed around the world once they are publicly adopted. The only way to hide technology would be to keep it under wraps in a way which prevented you from building anything that required it (ie if you are trying to hide the technology electricity, you can't go building hydro stations). State funded research has only appeared much more recently- it's far more likely that these things would happen by chance.

A system that might more accurately reflect how technology develops and spreads would have science points distributed across technology impetuses- Technologies would have requirements to be discovered (for example, a pre-requisite technology) and certain conditions (such as a coastal city for sailing). The number, distribution and type of these impetuses would direct the division of science points. For example, if sailing had a requirement for pottery (or woodworking- I don't judge what your tech tree contains) and impetuses for being on a coastal city, having nearby sea resources, being on a lake, being on a river, or having nearby coastal cities, a city with at least one of these things would begin to apply science points to the sailing technology. If the city had more of these things, it's very likely that a larger percentage of science points would be applied.

For an example, let's say that animal husbandry has an impetus for cows, sheep and horses and sailing has impetuses as listed above. If a city had neither technology and produced 12 science per turn with 2 nearby cow resources, but being on the coast and a river with a nearby fish resource, we'd count 3 impetuses for sailing and two for animal husbandry, and so the science would be divided as 40% for animal husbandry and 60% for sailing, which is 4.8 for animal husbandry and 7.2 for sailing. Civs that you have trade relationships with or friendly agreements would get these technologies very quickly, although it's possible you might get a trade or culture boost for spreading it to them. Those civs could in turn spread it to other civs to spread your culture again and earn you culture points.

dunkleosteus said:

Currently, Civ games begin at 4000 BC and progress to the information era. Winning before this is pretty difficult, unless you can manage to sweep a domination victory. It should be possible to play an entire game of Civ without getting into the renaissance- I doubt anyone would disagree that historical Rome could have claimed at least a few victory conditions in Europe.

Click to expand...

This could be a product of allowing you to choose a 'short game' right in your Advanced Setup: game can play only to X date (or Era) and Victory Conditions would be modified accordingly - you generate more Gold per Turn than any other Civ, you control more population than any other Civ, you have a Higher Culture as measured by Culture / Population, you have defeated more enemy units (non-Barbarian) than any other civ, etc.

dunkleosteus said:

In the spirit of aligning with history, I think early game expansion and technology should be altered- a mixture of conquest and alliances built the earliest civilizations. Humans have lived across the globe since before the first cities formed, and settling new lands has more often been about annexing your neighbours rather than settling uninhabited areas (or killing your neighbours and then settling the newly uninhabited areas).

Click to expand...

There IS a big difference in population density between cities and virtually any other human population. That's why the pre and early Classical Greeks were able to establish 'colonies' of small cities around the Mediterranean and Black Sea, even when populations as different as the Sicils, Scythians, and Celts were all living in those same places. What is important is that NONE of the cities they established outside of Greece proper are Greek today, or were even Greek by the end of what the game calls the Classical period: Massilia/Marseilles, the settlements in the Crimea had all become 'local' in culture and population or (in the case of Syracuse and the cities in southern Italy) had been conquered and assimilated completely into the Roman 'culture-political sphere'. The lesson is that rapid early 'expansion' is temporary unless it is continuous, backed by continuously superior culture and political organization - in other words, almost impossible. Even Rome, while it left behind some lovely ruins, left no lasting cultural or political structure in North Africa or the Middle East, or even in parts of Europe it hadn't occupied long enough, like Britain.

dunkleosteus said:

A system that might more accurately reflect how technology develops and spreads would have science points distributed across technology impetuses- Technologies would have requirements to be discovered (for example, a pre-requisite technology) and certain conditions (such as a coastal city for sailing). The number, distribution and type of these impetuses would direct the division of science points. For example, if sailing had a requirement for pottery (or woodworking- I don't judge what your tech tree contains) and impetuses for being on a coastal city, having nearby sea resources, being on a lake, being on a river, or having nearby coastal cities, a city with at least one of these things would begin to apply science points to the sailing technology. If the city had more of these things, it's very likely that a larger percentage of science points would be applied.

For an example, let's say that animal husbandry has an impetus for cows, sheep and horses and sailing has impetuses as listed above. If a city had neither technology and produced 12 science per turn with 2 nearby cow resources, but being on the coast and a river with a nearby fish resource, we'd count 3 impetuses for sailing and two for animal husbandry, and so the science would be divided as 40% for animal husbandry and 60% for sailing, which is 4.8 for animal husbandry and 7.2 for sailing. Civs that you have trade relationships with or friendly agreements would get these technologies very quickly, although it's possible you might get a trade or culture boost for spreading it to them. Those civs could in turn spread it to other civs to spread your culture again and earn you culture points.

Click to expand...

Technology spreads. That's one of the lessons of history that the game has almost completely missed. How fast and where it spreads to can vary tremendously, though, and the 'speed of acquisition' can even be modified hugely by the Social and Cultural Policies of the civ involved. The Greek Hoplite and the Roman Legion were not just a product of technologies, but also of Cultural Policies and attitudes, and attempts to copy them (which were tried from 300 BCE to about 100 AD) all failed because they could not simultaneously adopt the Culture that made the military system possible.

Likewise, some technologies require other technologies, or specialized techniques that are hard to learn. Seeing a wheel in use quickly gives you the idea of the wheel and axle. Learning how to shape spokes, hubs, rims, metal tires, etc - and the harness to make an animal-drawn vehicle really useful - that requires a lot more work. At the extreme, seeing an Atomic Bomb go off when you've never even heard of atoms, and all you learn is that there is Strong Magic in the world.

So, getting technologies to 'spread' will take some considerable programming and thought. I suspect each and every technology, application, unit, building and result of technology in the game will have to have a Spread Factor indicating how easy it is to 'pick it up', followed by the Pre-requisites: Wheel requires some kind of Woodworking, the Atomic Bomb requires Atomic Theory, Advanced Engineering, access to uranium, and a major engineering effort at refining and building the components and tools required to make the components to make the bomb.

It's still worth doing: right now, the idea that one state in the Industrial Era has Riflemen and no one else has them is ridiculous: Once you have technologies to spread information (Seafaring, Printing, Telephone and Telegraph, ultimately, of course, The Internet) it is virtually impossible to stop anyone who wants a technology from getting it. The industry required to apply the technology may be lacking, but it can be acquired with effort - see the USA in 1812 learning to build Ships of the Line even on the Great Lakes, or Iran's modern effort to acquire the tools to build the components to achieve nuclear weapons...

I agree that there is a difference between the density of human habitation between cities and more rural communities, but what I meant is that most of the well known empires didn't expand through settlement but by conquest: the Hittites, Assyrians, ancient Chinese, the Mongols, Rome, any many others. By the end of the Roman empire many of the Italian cities would have seemed very Roman, but nearly all predate the founding of the Roman kingdom to older Etruscan and Italic clans. Rome may have made them what they were, but that doesn't mean the older more primitive cities didn't exist. Civilizations can't simply displace thousands and thousands of people peacefully.

The question is, in Game Terms, how is the 'non-civilization' population density going to be represented? Right now, the only thing on the map outside of Civs are City States, Barbarian Camps and 'Goodie Huts'. The Huts only rarely provide a single population point, the Barbarian Camps never, and the City States are really pretty thin on the ground and usually have too many benefits to want to conquer all or many of them.

I suggest that a better model would be to consolidate 'Camps' and 'Huts' into one category, which at the start also includes the future City States: Settlements. Each settlement, when met, could be either Hostile (current Barbarian Camp model), Indifferent (current City State model), or Friendly (current Goodie Hut model). In good locations, any of them could grow into larger settlements and, in some cases quite quickly, into Cities. You could acquire those cities for your own empire either through Conquest or through Assimilation - after all, one city state became part of the Roman Empire when the ruler essentially willed it to the Roman Senate on his death, so there is plenty of historical precedent for Cultural or Political assimilation not requiring direct military action.

This also allows for a lot more interaction with the supposed Barbarians than now: you should be able to hire barbarian troops, trade with barbarian camps, and even pay them to attack your opponents and neighbors - all represent frequent historical realities. More varied interaction with Non-Civ elements also could alleviate some of the problems with civ maps now. In the current game, if you have no strategic resources nearby, you can be in serious trouble: your cities on a flat plain without horses right next to Huns, for instance. If the option exists to trade for Horses or Iron with the local Settlements, you've got more diplomatic options to alleviate strategic difficulties. Historically also, many Luxury resources came almost exclusively from 'barbarian' interactions: Amber, Furs, and Spices all come to mind.

Even Technologies can come from the 'barbarians' - the Scythian and Proto-Scythians of central Asia/Russia had horse-riding technologies like sophisticated saddles, bridles and such long before the 'civilized' states of the Middle East did. Among other technological developments coming out of Barbarian or 'City State' country are the wooden barrel, 'chain mail' armor, the steerable windmill, and possibly the overshot waterwheel.

I really like that approach. It seems solid and balanced, and I like the inclusion of barbarians. As an aside, it always seemed weird to me that all barbarians are allies with each other. They hate all civs and city states but will easily cooperate with barbarians from any camp in the world. You'd think that individual tribes of barbarians would have only their own interests at heart. Maybe barbarians could even ask you for help to attack other barbarians.

dunkleosteus said:

Maybe barbarians could even ask you for help to attack other barbarians.

Click to expand...

Like the current City States requesting you to 'Demand Tribute' from their City State neighbor, this would be one way to 'make friends' with a 'barbarian' Settlement very quickly.

This model also gives you a good reason to keep Scouts around longer: Great People (diplomats) and Scouts would be the units that have a higher chance of finding Friendly Settlements right off the bat, so the low combat factor of scouts is balanced by the fact they won't have to fight quite as often, and are more likely to get Something Good out of the settlement on first meeting.

Boris Gudenuf said:

This model also gives you a good reason to keep Scouts around longer: Great People (diplomats) and Scouts would be the units that have a higher chance of finding Friendly Settlements right off the bat, so the low combat factor of scouts is balanced by the fact they won't have to fight quite as often, and are more likely to get Something Good out of the settlement on first meeting.

Click to expand...

About Scouts I wondered earlier... shouldn't they appear with a technology like in Civ4, as they would become so much important. Realistically : the will to discover "potentially interesting" sites (opposed to "vital") must have appeared as a luxury at those hard times, as pretty much unnecessary or to be delayed forever. That's why our first warrior should be made kept near the camps, because they are useful here and nowhere else.

About Scouts again, I wonder if this will of discovering is so late : after all, humankind has born curious. I imagine then that the knowledge of land, so much important, was separated by several people in different "tribes" of the same "clans", as to not put all one's egg in the same basket. (no one should be so much irreplaceable) In term of Civ, this supposes that at start you have "allies" that are the same "clan" (civ ?) than you. They are scattered through the land, and when you encouter them they give you useful information like surroundings maps, or even technologies etc... yes this looks like goody huts a lot. But with goody huts, there's no notion of membership. (or indirect : after all the ones you discover disappear and are for you and no one else) We could do so then that one have to meet every "tribe" of his clan in order to do something unusual. Maybe the early way to acquire science would be only by that mean ? Maybe the tech you discover will enjoin you how you will play the game, which kind of entity you will become ? Or, is it when you meet them all that you discover agriculture ?

But this gets far away of mere scouts lol.

Naokaukodem said:

About Scouts I wondered earlier... shouldn't they appear with a technology like in Civ4, as they would become so much important. Realistically : the will to discover "potentially interesting" sites (opposed to "vital") must have appeared as a luxury at those hard times, as pretty much unnecessary or to be delayed forever. That's why our first warrior should be made kept near the camps, because they are useful here and nowhere else.

About Scouts again, I wonder if this will of discovering is so late : after all, humankind has born curious. I imagine then that the knowledge of land, so much important, was separated by several people in different "tribes" of the same "clans", as to not put all one's egg in the same basket. (no one should be so much irreplaceable) In term of Civ, this supposes that at start you have "allies" that are the same "clan" (civ ?) than you. They are scattered through the land, and when you encouter them they give you useful information like surroundings maps, or even technologies etc... yes this looks like goody huts a lot. But with goody huts, there's no notion of membership. (or indirect : after all the ones you discover disappear and are for you and no one else) We could do so then that one have to meet every "tribe" of his clan in order to do something unusual. Maybe the early way to acquire science would be only by that mean ? Maybe the tech you discover will enjoin you how you will play the game, which kind of entity you will become ? Or, is it when you meet them all that you discover agriculture ?

But this gets far away of mere scouts lol.

Click to expand...

The 'Scout Problem' is that in the current Civ model, you start with a LOT less information than you should have. Even if you just migrated to your Start Position, it's hard to imagine that you wouldn't know that there is a big mountain range a few tiles' away (100 miles? 200 miles?) or that the seacoast is right over thataway... Likewise for resources - Native Americans living 100s of miles away knew about Salt Licks in Kentucky and even tribes living quite a ways inland knew about tribes on the coast that had fish to trade. How to 'model' that kind of information into the game is a real problem whenever you have, as we do, an Artificial 'Start' time and position.

I see two possible solutions. One would be an 'extended Start Radius' in which tall mountains, coastlines, major (X tiles long or longer?) rivers, would all show up in the 'fog' surrounding your Start. Also possibly 1 - 2 major Resources that are pretty hard to hide: salt licks, animals like (presumably wild) cattle, sheep and 'game' - certainly Bison. On the other hand, iron, copper, gold, silver, and such minerals you'd have to go and look for - they aren't obvious, and locals who know about such valuables may prefer to trade them to you rather than tell you where to find them yourself.

The other solution is to admit that 'Scout' at the start is an Artificial designation at the for Those Folks In The Tribe with a bad case of 'horizon fever' - they just gotta see what's on the Other Side of the hill, river, mountain, or desert. Therefore, almost every Civ would start with a Scout, but when the youngsters (almost every Tribe we have any record of also has a 'wandering year' or 'vision quest' for young men, which could be the model for the original 'scout' - expendable youngsters going out to Prove Themselves against the wilderness) return home they can be Upgraded to Warriors or the local tribal equivalent. Later there would be a more formal bunch of Scouts with upgrades to things like Prodromoi, Explorers, Dragoons, Armored Cars, Rangers, etc. but for the start, that model would solve both the current 'Upgrade' problem for Scouts and provide more information for your Starting Position. Given that, in my Ideal Civ VI the majority of 'Barbarians' would not be initially hostile, the scouts would also last longer and be able to find out more before running into trouble that kills them off.
However, if we use the 'Vision Quest' explanation, you couldn't just pump out the initial Scouts at will: they would be only a certain percentage of your population, perhaps initially you'd be able to raise one 'Scout' for every 5 - 6 points of population, but getting any more would require that they be a later version of the Regular Military scouting troops: light cavalry, light infantry, etc.
Or hired Barbarians, if you've got the Gold...

I wondered if there's a third possibility for the Start/Seed/Scout Problem. Have nomadic starts. Actually let you make a meaningful choice not to be settled, and develop in a certain different way for a while.

You could still force the "fact" to be that settle = win, but if you make it so there's a better and worse way to play nomad in the early game (15 turns? 40?) , you can wrench it to be fair, I think.

Horseshoe_Hermi said:

I wondered if there's a third possibility for the Start/Seed/Scout Problem. Have nomadic starts. Actually let you make a meaningful choice not to be settled, and develop in a certain different way for a while.

You could still force the "fact" to be that settle = win, but if you make it so there's a better and worse way to play nomad in the early game (15 turns? 40?) , you can wrench it to be fair, I think.

Click to expand...

We had a discussion on just the point of 'nomadic' starts in another thread, but in essence, yes, there should be an 'alternative start' of a Pastoral civilization, that has a much larger Start Radius of influence (rather like the Shoshoni Civ does now) and would form Camps, possibly 2 per Settler rather than one City. Your starting Tech would be Animal Husbandry or its equivalent, you would get a definite 'boost' towards researching things like Wheel, Horseback Riding, Archery, Composite Bows, etc. However, and definitely before Gunpowder, you'd have to get access to settled cities either by conquest or trade, or you'd get stomped by Civilizations with population, industry and military strength you could not match.
A Pastoral Civ would start with scouts and should be able to put them on horses pretty early (I believe some of the central Asian groups had horse saddles by 1000 BCE, which puts their Horseback Riding potentially during the Ancient Era) and thus cover a lot more ground and interact with Settlements and Civs a lot further away than 'settled' civilizations could.