Ethnies and population

[pokiehl]

Sorry. What racist reference I am supposed to want?

My mistake, I got usernames mixed up.

 

[BuchiTaton]

My mistake, I got usernames mixed up.

No problem.

About the "barbarians" and razing. I realy want a CIV7 that allows players to deal with minor/non-playable civs and those conquered cities that would not be the best idea to keep, without the need to destroy them.
The Barbarian Clans mode is already a steep on that direction since the players can get gains and rewards for a more constructive interaction with barbarians.
Same about conquered cities, more options to negotiate for the ownership and status of conquered cities could be the way to always get some benefits and never had the "optimal" option of razing. I mean if CIV already got rid of direct references to slavery and figures like Stalin why not give "barbarians" some less prejuiced depiction and stop allowing players to remove complete populations.

 

[Patine]

what does “job opportunity strata” mean?

The tendency in some societies where, usually, de facto, certain ethnities gravitate to professional, higher-paid jobs, and others to base, minimal-skill, labour and services.

 

[luca 83]

No problem.

About the "barbarians" and razing. I realy want a CIV7 that allows players to deal with minor/non-playable civs and those conquered cities that would not be the best idea to keep, without the need to destroy them.
The Barbarian Clans mode is already a steep on that direction since the players can get gains and rewards for a more constructive interaction with barbarians.
Same about conquered cities, more options to negotiate for the ownership and status of conquered cities could be the way to always get some benefits and never had the "optimal" option of razing. I mean if CIV already got rid of direct references to slavery and figures like Stalin why not give "barbarians" some less prejuiced depiction and stop allowing players to remove complete populations.

So we do not allow atomic bombs because it is evil and the Japanese can be offended! We do not destroy cities because it is not correct, censoriamon something if it can offend! Fascism is evil communism and evil, the American Indians were good and smoked tobacco instead I at a game like that I do not want to play at all in the world

 

[BuchiTaton]

So we do not allow atomic bombs because it is evil and the Japanese can be offended! We do not destroy cities because it is not correct, censoriamon something if it can offend!

Even for this you are fixed to reproduce the same historical path?

At least the in-game Nukes allows cities to have survivors and be reconstructed like the historical Hiroshima and Nagasaki did. Razing cities as currently represented in-game just eliminate the city completely with their whole population included.

Fascism is evil communism and evil, the American Indians were good and smoked tobacco instead

Allude to Native Americans is completely gratuitous, I am not asking for any cultural group to have a special treatment, you are just supposing I would want that because you think I must follow some "agenda", but let me tell you that people can just feel that some actions are nasty because something inside yourself know it.

I at a game like that I do not want to play at all in the world

Of course, at this point is pretty clear that the game that you dont want to play is CIV, because you want a game that is completely different to CIV!

 

[luca 83]

Even for this you are fixed to reproduce the same historical path?

At least the in-game Nukes allows cities to have survivors and be reconstructed like the historical Hiroshima and Nagasaki did. Razing cities as currently represented in-game just eliminate the city completely with their whole population included.


Allude to Native Americans is completely gratuitous, I am not asking for any cultural group to have a special treatment, you are just supposing I would want that because you think I must follow some "agenda", but let me tell you that people can just feel that some actions are nasty because something inside yourself know it.


Of course, at this point is pretty clear that the game that you dont want to play is CIV, because you want a game that is completely different to CIV!

Of course because I do not have political correctness in my blood and I do not sweeten things so as not to offend minorities for the last time slavery must be represented not only with African populations especially the Atlantic route,: but as a game system : no matter ethnicity can change depending on the game and the game

 

[BuchiTaton]

The game can do use of a cultural identitarian element like in CIV4, but the term "ethnies" is highly charged with a genetic/racial connotation that could be problematic, whatever you care or not Firaxis put money into it so they care as do a significative part of their customers.

Even more, whatever you would want to use ethnicity for (that usualy you dont provide an in-game justification for your requests of realism) it could likely be covered by a less controversial concept like tradition or even culture as a whole. These terms are just about memetic heritage not charged with genetic heritage like is ethnicity. More important is that the former terms are more usefull for the game mechanics of CIV since culture is already a main topic and these can be shared, mixed, influence and integrate populations without the limitations of human reproduction. The values and ideologies of one culture can be shared by their great works of art, media, crafts, tourism and migrants while ethnicity is limited to only the migrants. Or for example when somebody learn a foreign language you get to understand part of that culture, while to have an ethnic impact on other you need to have children with the foreigners. So which one is more usefull for the mechanics of CIV?

 

[Patine]

Of course because I do not have political correctness in my blood and I do not sweeten things so as not to offend minorities for the last time slavery must be represented not only with African populations especially the Atlantic route,: but as a game system : no matter ethnicity can change depending on the game and the game

Not everyone who doesn't want slavery, bigoted societies, and genocide in Civ has a Mr. Rogers-type motivation for it. But, again, you still obviously don't want to play CIV, so I think you're probably wasting your time here, frankly.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

The game can do use of a cultural identitarian element like in CIV4, but the term "ethnies" is highly charged with a genetic/racial connotation that could be problematic, whatever you care or not Firaxis put money into it so they care as do a significative part of their customers.

Even more, whatever you would want to use ethnicity for (that usualy you dont provide an in-game justification for your requests of realism) it could likely be covered by a less controversial concept like tradition or even culture as a whole. These terms are just about memetic heritage not charged with genetic heritage like is ethnicity. More important is that the former terms are more usefull for the game mechanics of CIV since culture is already a main topic and these can be shared, mixed, influence and integrate populations without the limitations of human reproduction. The values and ideologies of one culture can be shared by their great works of art, media, crafts, tourism and migrants while ethnicity is limited to only the migrants. Or for example when somebody learn a foreign language you get to understand part of that culture, while to have an ethnic impact on other you need to have children with the foreigners. So what one is more usefull for the mechanics of CIV?

Yes. Using the term "heritage" might make more sense in what I'm trying to convey instead of calling groups of people like Americans (US) and Brazilians as ethnicities.

 

[luca 83]

The game can do use of a cultural identitarian element like in CIV4, but the term "ethnies" is highly charged with a genetic/racial connotation that could be problematic, whatever you care or not Firaxis put money into it so they care as do a significative part of their customers.

Even more, whatever you would want to use ethnicity for (that usualy you dont provide an in-game justification for your requests of realism) it could likely be covered by a less controversial concept like tradition or even culture as a whole. These terms are just about memetic heritage not charged with genetic heritage like is ethnicity. More important is that the former terms are more usefull for the game mechanics of CIV since culture is already a main topic and these can be shared, mixed, influence and integrate populations without the limitations of human reproduction. The values and ideologies of one culture can be shared by their great works of art, media, crafts, tourism and migrants while ethnicity is limited to only the migrants. Or for example when somebody learn a foreign language you get to understand part of that culture, while to have an ethnic impact on other you need to have children with the foreigners. So what one is more usefull for the mechanics of CIV?

Both are important after the Lombard invasion of Italy, written laws were created for the Romans and the Lombards separate edicts of Rotari . Physical ethnicities exist genetically a Japanese is less mixed than a Sicilian, i. Peoples in Italy have mixed so there is no longer an original Roman from Caesar's time so the game should take that into account. Not like humankind where you choose the people but more gradual and balanced

 

[Patine]

Both are important after the Lombard invasion of Italy, written laws were created for the Romans and the Lombards separate edicts of Rotari . Physical ethnicities exist genetically a Japanese is less mixed than a Sicilian, i. Peoples in Italy have mixed so there is no longer an original Roman from Caesar's time so the game should take that into account. Not like humankind where you choose the people but more gradual and balanced

These events are not remotely likely to occur on a RW schedule in a given Civ game.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Both are important after the Lombard invasion of Italy, written laws were created for the Romans and the Lombards separate edicts of Rotari . Physical ethnicities exist genetically a Japanese is less mixed than a Sicilian, i. Peoples in Italy have mixed so there is no longer an original Roman from Caesar's time so the game should take that into account. Not like humankind where you choose the people but more gradual and balanced

The only ethnicities/heritages that would need to exist in a civ game are the ones on the map. If there isn't a separate Sicilian or Lombard civ or city-state/minor nations, there is no need for them to be in the game.

 

[Patine]

The only ethnicities/heritages that would need to exist in a civ game are the ones on the map. If there isn't a separate Sicilian or Lombard civ or city-state/minor nations, there is no need for them to be in the game.

And the Lombards would have pretty limited historical material to draw upon for a whole - considering they didn't build a single city, or make a single technological, political, cultural, economic, religious, or military innovation of THEIR OWN.

 

[civilizationfanatic2000]

The only ethnicities/heritages that would need to exist in a civ game are the ones on the map. If there isn't a separate Sicilian or Lombard civ or city-state/minor nations, there is no need for them to be in the game.

The number depends on how far you can stretch 'on the map'.Traditional civ game, symmetrical play? Probably 30 at the most. Every Tile Has People? Hundreds.

 

[BuchiTaton]

Current limit for a match is 64 between playable civs, City States and the Barbarians player. So potentially something like that could be the max number of cultures/heritages/traditions in the same match, of course determinated by the number of those entities each game.

Talking about the Lombards, the "Barbarian Clans" mode uses generic names for the different tribes of each kind of clan but the in-game info give us an idea of what are they supposed to be. If in CIV7 we can rid of the problematic term "barbarian" and have something like "nations" instead so we can have minor civs with an identity since their tribal stage (that can turn into City States like in BC mode). Then ones like the Lombards could be either their own thing or be part of a broader "Germanic" culture that include the names of historical Germanic tribes.

 

[BackseatTyrant]

If in CIV7 we can rid of the problematic term "barbarian" and have something like "nations" instead so we can have minor civs with an identity since their tribal stage (that can turn into City States like in BC mode).

One word I've come gravitate towards, is Zomians, a reference to the historical region in south-east Asia where people fled to form stateless communities because the places they fled from demanded taxes without offering any public services in return. If barbarians were to be renamed to that, the game could say that these adversarial units didn't just form out of thin air and aren't just "evil for evil's sake", but that they're actually former citizens who abandoned civilization due to poor living conditions, which was guaranteed to be the case in urban areas everywhere for almost all of human history

 

[BuchiTaton]

One word I've come gravitate towards, is Zomians, a reference to the historical region in south-east Asia where people fled to form stateless communities because the places they fled from demanded taxes without offering any public services in return. If barbarians were to be renamed to that, the game could say that these adversarial units didn't just form out of thin air and aren't just "evil for evil's sake", but that they're actually former citizens who abandoned civilization due to poor living conditions, which was guaranteed to be the case in urban areas everywhere for almost all of human history

I would like a more dynamic and population centered CIV7 with things like migration. Still, for simplicity and familiarity sake I think is better to keep a Barbarian Clan approach were "barbarians" are more manageable, so even if they exist since the beggining of the game most of them are not as annoying as current barbarians for no reason, being many of them more like the Goodie Huts but with the capacity of negotiate, trade, migrate and change attiture toward players.

 

[Patine]

I would like a more dynamic and population centered CIV7 with things like migration. Still, for simplicity and familiarity sake I think is better to keep a Barbarian Clan approach were "barbarians" are more manageable, so even if they exist since the beggining of the game most of them are not as annoying as current barbarians for no reason, being many of them more like the Goodie Huts but with the capacity of negotiate, trade, migrate and change attiture toward players.

Well, in truth, the Greeks and Romans had very complex relations and dealings with peoples they actually called, "Barbarians," like the Chinese did with peoples they called, "Yue," and Japanese with peoples they called, "Emishi," and, "Gaijan," and Aztecs with peoples they called, "Chichimeca," and Colonial- and Imperial-Era British with peoples they outright called, "Savages," (all terms used in roughly very similar context and usage to the Greco-Roman term, "Barbarian,"), and definitely were NOT as simple as, "hostile hordes at the foreign gates," - so a more interactive and detailed system is probably in order.

 

[luca 83]

It is better to focus the new game on ethnic groups and on the concept of ethnic and cultural minorities within a state, where there is the possibility of rebellion and secession

 

[Patine]

It is better to focus the new game on ethnic groups and on the concept of ethnic and cultural minorities within a state, where there is the possibility of rebellion and secession

That would quickly make the game unmanageable.