Civ 4 Idea

I would prefer that each time you have a revolution you become a new civ.

i.e.
Celt -> Frank -> French/German
Roman -> British -> US

Lord knows the "Chinese" civilization is all about revolution and dynastic change. I think the Chinese have a better claim on Religious and Industrious. They seem to weather governmental change much better than their european counterparts. I would argue against scientific because even though they had a HUGE tech advantage in Polo's time that was countered by the fierce isolationisim and a caste system that hampered scientific experimentation for over 1000 years.

Each time you have a Revolution you could pick a successor empires to become i.e History of the World (Hasbro board game).
If you keep at least one of your old traits you keep the old name. like the US starts as an expansionist & industrius Republic then becomes a Comercial & Industrius Democracy

One question; What do the Romans have to do with either the British or the Americans?

The British or at least the Saxons are concidered to be a remnant of the Roman culture.

I have to say i dont think that should be in there. Why would they change their civ? I thought Russians were still Russians when they over through the Czar, and when Communism fell they became Russians again. The French were still French when they had their revolution.

In a strict political definition a revolution is a change of government. E.G. French Monarchy -> 1789 Revolution -> French Constitutional Monarchy -> 1792 Revolution -> French Republic.

In a way the French nation did change - and often a nation assumes a new name after a revolution, Russia became the Soviet Union etc. But to go from Frank to French? Nah... sounds a bit stupid really.

Originally posted by elfstorm
In a strict political definition a revolution is a change of government. E.G. French Monarchy -> 1789 Revolution -> French Constitutional Monarchy -> 1792 Revolution -> French Republic.

In a way the French nation did change - and often a nation assumes a new name after a revolution, Russia became the Soviet Union etc. But to go from Frank to French? Nah... sounds a bit stupid really.

Click to expand...

Think about it. When was France founded? It was founded on the breakup of the Frank empire. If you look for a French culture in 3000bc fighting with the Babalonians you will be very disapointed.

All of these modern cultures came from some place. They came from the ashes of empires dead and gone. There have been some peaceful evolutions of culture but they are the exception rather than the rule.

Mostly I hate seeing America going to war with the Romans.

The Saxons are a germanic tribe therefore not descendants of the Romans.

And Russia != Soviet Union!!!

The Soviet Union was (as the name implies) a Union of different states (Russia, the Ukraine, Beluros, the Baltic States and many others), so that's the reason for the change of the name.

So a revolution shouldn't shouldn't change your civ's name. I think it would be much more interesting if it would be possible that colonies (or parts of your empire) try to gain independence and then form a civ on their own.
Examples for that would be the American Revolution and the division of Charlemagne's empire. The French Revolution and the Soviet Union are completely different things.

Originally posted by vulture


Think about it. When was France founded? It was founded on the breakup of the Frank empire. If you look for a French culture in 3000bc fighting with the Babalonians you will be very disapointed.

Click to expand...

Ok, I am not a historian, but I am pretty sure that if you would refer to an old french civilization, I beleive that Celt are the french ancestor.... well they are the ancestor to a damn bunch of modern civ

I have to say, I like the idea of a revoulution. This would simmulate what happens often in the World, and still happens today. You could have things like the American Revolution, in which a new nation was succesfully formed. Or, they could turn into the situations like the Civil War, in which the cities succede, but end up going back to the original owner.

It could occur in cities close together with prolonged civil disorder far from the capital, with increased chances if they are overseas (i.e. not on the same continent as capital) or in a repressive gov't(despotism, monarchy,communism).

If a city can defect to another civ, why can't it defect to its own civ?

Hmmm, I like the idea but it leaves a few problems.

ex. British -> America. Lots of people would complain because they want to play as britain and it changes to America.

This would cause some people to really dislike this if they only wanted to be a certain civ and it kept changing with revolutions.

Plus, some people may think it an insult to their country if you make them the name of the nation in Anarchy.

Just my 2 pennies. Other than that, the idea works. You may consider slightly adjusting the idea to make it more popular.

Originally posted by LaZZyCaKe


Ok, I am not a historian, but I am pretty sure that if you would refer to an old french civilization, I beleive that Celt are the french ancestor.... well they are the ancestor to a damn bunch of modern civ

Click to expand...

The Franks were a group of Germanic peoples inhabiting the lower and middle Rhine Valley by the 3d century AD, when they are first mentioned by classical authors. Identified by these writers as the Salians, Ripuarians, and Chatti, they are said to have shared the same language and to have had many similar laws.

Toward the middle of the 3d century the Franks began penetrating the Roman frontier around Mainz. They were driven back by Emperor Probus. In 358, Julian the Apostate handed over Toxandria, the region between the Meuse and the Scheldt rivers, to the Salian Franks, who became Roman allies and provided troops for the imperial army.

The Salian Franks were divided into several groups led by chiefs (reguli). One of these groups, the Merovingians, which took its name from the chief Merovech (Merowen), was particularly successful. Merovech and his successor, Childeric (d. 481), extended Salian domination to the south, perhaps as far as the Somme River. Childeric aided the Romans, but after the death (461) of Emperor Majorian he sought to overthrow Aegidius, the imperial governor in northern Gaul. Aegidius forced Childeric into exile among the Thuringians, but he returned after a few years and, in alliance with some Saxons, defeated the Romans.

Syagrius, Aegidius's son and successor, was able to keep Childeric from moving his people south of the Somme, but another regulus took control of Le Mans. Cambrai and Therouanne were also held by Salian reguli. Clovis, Childeric's son, conquered most of Gaul and unified the Franks under the Merovingian dynasty. Clovis also converted to Christianity.

The Ripuarian Franks and the Chatti raided across the middle Rhine frontier during the first quarter of the 5th century. In the wake of the Hunnic invasion of Gaul, a band of Ripuarians gained control of Cologne. By c.470, Trier was in Ripuarian hands, and thereafter Metz, Toul, and Verdun fell to the Franks. The Carolingian dynasty, which succeeded the Merovingians, is considered to have been of Ripuarian origin.

Under the Carolingians, the Franks formed a vast empire that reached its pinnacle in the reign (768-814) of Charlemagne. This empire was divided in the mid-9th century, from it emerging the West Frankish kingdom (France) and the East Frankish kingdom (Germany).

Much is known about the material civilization of the Franks during the period before they became Christians. Thousands of graves have been discovered in which have been found not only skeletons but various kinds of weapons, jewelry, and even bits of cloth and leather. The most celebrated find was the grave of Childeric, discovered at Tournai in 1653. A great wealth in gold, including a signet ring with his portrait on it, and the severed head of his horse were among its contents.

http://www.discoverfrance.net/France/History/Frankish_empire.shtml

Originally posted by Furry Spatula
I have to say i dont think that should be in there. Why would they change their civ? I thought Russians were still Russians when they over through the Czar, and when Communism fell they became Russians again. The French were still French when they had their revolution.

Click to expand...

Changing the civ seems too strange for me - but changing the leader is probably a good idea.

Your forum is very huge and it takes too many turns to turn pages on this forum. But this idea is really worth considering. Vulture has some good point there.

I see this closely connected to my idea about introducing new ethnic genealogical tree into the game, which I actually never mentioned on this forum. Or did I? But, of course revolutions alone don't change the title of the nation, there have to be certain other revolutions going on as well in different directions to drastically change the face of whole nation or ethnicity.

Still think that players should start the game as "cave people" and/or at least "hairy arse people". No, no, not because I love hairy ones, just because this was really how it all began, there were no Romans, no Americans, no Turks. We all used to be hairy ones.

Originally posted by vulture
I would prefer that each time you have a revolution you become a new civ.

i.e.
Celt -> Frank -> French/German
Roman -> British -> US

Lord knows the "Chinese" civilization is all about revolution and dynastic change. I think the Chinese have a better claim on Religious and Industrious. They seem to weather governmental change much better than their european counterparts. I would argue against scientific because even though they had a HUGE tech advantage in Polo's time that was countered by the fierce isolationisim and a caste system that hampered scientific experimentation for over 1000 years.

Click to expand...

A little bit of history lesson here. Religiong is definetly one trait that does not fit China. That should be for the Europeans. Chinese politics were seldom dominated by religion. China's isolationism did not begin until five hundred years ago. It really is overexaggeration to say that isolationism lasted for a thousand years. As for a caste system, it is an Indian thing, not a Chinese thing.

The three descriptions that fit China is industrious, scientific or commercial. I won't explain why China is industrious since everyone seem to accept that description.

I would argue that China is scientific because of the China's lead in science and technology for so many thousand years until five hundred years ago. But if the only reason that China do not get scientific bonus simply because they lost the lead in technology five hundred years ago, then the Greeks definetly should not get the science bonus becaues they lost the lead much MUCH earlier.

China is also commercial. However, I think to some extend every civilization is commercial at some point in time, so that China should be given commercial bonus is admittedly a little controversial. However, it must not be denied that during the Tang, Song, Yuen, Ming and Ching dynasty, Chinese commerce and exports are the largest in the world. It wasn't until the late Ching dynasty that China lost the lead in commerce. Therefore again, in this respect, China also deserve commercial bonus.

In my opinion, to stick to historical accuracy, CHina should be industrious and scientific civilization. Of course, this would upet the balance of the game by making China too powerful.

Originally posted by vulture
The British or at least the Saxons are concidered to be a remnant of the Roman culture.

Click to expand...

I thought the Saxons were Germanic - and that area, although invaded, was never colonized permanently by Rome.

Originally posted by gonzo_for_civ
Hmmm, I like the idea but it leaves a few problems.

ex. British -> America. Lots of people would complain because they want to play as britain and it changes to America.

This would cause some people to really dislike this if they only wanted to be a certain civ and it kept changing with revolutions.

Plus, some people may think it an insult to their country if you make them the name of the nation in Anarchy.

Just my 2 pennies. Other than that, the idea works. You may consider slightly adjusting the idea to make it more popular.

Click to expand...

If there is a provision made for certain part of British Empire like big continent away from Britain to be converted to America or whatever, and British can stay along on its own. This is completely different from Babylonians and Carthiginians, for example, because we know these don't exist at present. Whereas, British and Americans exist. The heirs for Babylonians and Carthiginians could be Arabs and Jews. It is very odd to see Americans fight Babylonians for example, these civ's simply never met each other.

Originally posted by Dervish


If there is a provision made for certain part of British Empire like big continent away from Britain to be converted to America or whatever, and British can stay along on its own. This is completely different from Babylonians and Carthiginians, for example, because we know these don't exist at present. Whereas, British and Americans exist. The heirs for Babylonians and Carthiginians could be Arabs and Jews. It is very odd to see Americans fight Babylonians for example, these civ's simply never met each other.

Click to expand...

I do agree that this is very odd, but this is one ot the great things that makes Civ great. The abiliy to, as it were, "recreate history" is an appeal to the game. If Civ was historically accurate, the replayability value would certainly decrease.

Originally posted by Octavian X


I do agree that this is very odd, but this is one ot the great things that makes Civ great. The abiliy to, as it were, "recreate history" is an appeal to the game. If Civ was historically accurate, the replayability value would certainly decrease.

Click to expand...

Ye, that one was good actually. I didn't know about this re-write history thing.

Originally posted by vulture
I would prefer that each time you have a revolution you become a new civ.

i.e.
Celt -> Frank -> French/German
Roman -> British -> US

Click to expand...

Yessss, it's exactly that i am thinking. And delete the USA as a start civilization. I think it will be a dissident civilization of England.

And more It will make army upkeep, into border, a vital thing.

At last someone who thinks as me.

And more I think It's necessary to add Americans native-born civilization. It will be historically more correct...

And for China I think it is an example of stability. 2 politicals systems since the China origin. France has know 12 politicals regimes since revolution (and before there are feudalism, Carolingian empire, feodal monarchy, absolute monarchy....)
For England It's better but not the best: Monarchy, Republic, Monarchy, Constitutionnal monarchy.
For germany i don't know all history but there was Weimar republic, Nazi Empire, Sacred Roman-germanic empire (soooory for my english), the monarchy and even tribal organization.