Ethnies and population

[Boris Gudenuf]

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.

Yes, right now and forever in Civ the population has been divided into the people of the Civs, some ephemeral inhabitants of the 'goodie huts' , and infinite and forever Barbarians who have no other activity than to attack the Civs. This is both simple-minded and, frankly, insulting to the 'barbarians' - and it makes for a dull, predictable game.​

​

IRL, the pastoral groups of Central Asia were always more interested in Trading than Raiding: the Long Wall (Great Wall) of China was, in fact, originally built not to keep the 'Northern Barbarians' out, but to control where they came in to trade, so the trade could be properly taxed by the Chinese government. The famous Scythian goldwork now gracing museums from New York to Saint Petersburg was mostly made by Greeks because the Scythians were really good customers and paid very well for such craftsmanship.​

​

And the infamous Barbarian German tribes that supposedly constantly raided the Roman border? Not so much. In fact, a minor tribe called the Mattiachi, who lived right across the Rhine from Mantiacum (modern Mainz), the largest Roman military base north of Italy (2 full legions plus auxiliaries, making it by far the largest urban concentration of any kind north of Italy) invited Romans across the river, because they had a hot spring in the middle of their settlement, and basically set up a Tourist Trap to lure hot bath-loving Romans to come and take the waters - and trade. By 400 CE they were incorporated as a Roman town into the Empire - the newly-established Roman border that stretched around it in a wide arc is still marked by replica Roman mile forts in the Taunus Mountains to the north and east. Oh, and the Matti's original village is now the city of Wiesbaden - "Bath in the Meadow".​

​

The relations between Non-Civ and Civ components of the population were much more complex than simple eternal enimity and should be much more complex in the game. This could be as simple as incorporating the Goodie Huts and Barbarian Camps into the same set of smaller settlements in the game, or it could involve a complex rendering of individual tribes, polities, nomads, city states, etc. But it needs to be something beyond the simplistic strife which is all we have now.​

 

[luca 83]

Motivations rebellion: occupation 0 To10 lack of freedom , 0 to 10, nationalism, ethnic discrimination, war, military occupation , religious differences , ethnic, economic, population of the occupied territory poorer than the occupying nation, different government

 

[aieeegrunt]

The Barbarians serve a gameplay function as a semi random disruptor, especially in the older civ games where every so often you had the Major Uprising event fire.

As silly as it is to have a bunch of Angry Red Dudes materialize out of the aether, I kinda miss this mechanic. It helped shake tbings up a bit, espeically give how static and incompetent the AI in the later titles is. It also can act as a good anti-snowball mechanic if done right. It someone is ahead in science and gold because the AI is passive and you thought you could minimax by not having a military, here is a heaping helping of Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum.

Just have the barbs be more likely to spawn and target the civ with a low military but high gold output

Everyone rails about the Barb Galley Swarms, but remember that priates sacked the Port of Rome as late as the time of Gauis Marius, and they were not only common enough that late to capture Julius Caesar, but capturing Roman government officials was common enough that there were standardized rates for ransoming Roman Senators.

What this boils down to is a common issue in game design known as Design For Cause (DFC) verses Design For Effect (DFE).

The former, DFC, you try and design a system to simulate something like why tribes would raid the Rhine frontier enough we have lots of evidence of Rome fortifying and garrisoning that border.

The later, DFE, you just make a mechanic that gives you the effect you are looking for, and barbarians in Civ games is a good example. You don’t care why the Angry Red Dudes are angry or where they came from, you just want Angry Red Dudes sacking Rome.

The reason you would do DFE is because it’s a lot easier and you only have so much time and so many developers to make your game with.

Civ6 also has examples of DFC like loyalty, and they are pretty good cautionary tales about what happens when DFC isn’t done right

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

The Barbarians serve a gameplay function as a semi random disruptor, especially in the older civ games where every so often you had the Major Uprising event fire.

As silly as it is to have a bunch of Angry Red Dudes materialize out of the aether, I kinda miss this mechanic. It helped shake tbings up a bit, espeically give how static and incompetent the AI in the later titles is. It also can act as a good anti-snowball mechanic if done right. It someone is ahead in science and gold because the AI is passive and you thought you could minimax by not having a military, here is a heaping helping of Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum.

Just have the barbs be more likely to spawn and target the civ with a low military but high gold output

Everyone rails about the Barb Galley Swarms, but remember that priates sacked the Port of Rome as late as the time of Gauis Marius, and they were not only common enough that late to capture Julius Caesar, but capturing Roman government officials was common enough that there were standardized rates for ransoming Roman Senators.

What this boils down to is a common issue in game design known as Design For Cause (DFC) verses Design For Effect (DFE).

The former, DFC, you try and design a system to simulate something like why tribes would raid the Rhine frontier enough we have lots of evidence of Rome fortifying and garrisoning that border.

The later, DFE, you just make a mechanic that gives you the effect you are looking for, and barbarians in Civ games is a good example. You don’t care why the Angry Red Dudes are angry or where they came from, you just want Angry Red Dudes sacking Rome.

The reason you would do DFE is because it’s a lot easier and you only have so much time and so many developers to make your game with.

Civ6 also has examples of DFC like loyalty, and they are pretty good cautionary tales about what happens when DFC isn’t done right

All good points, but they highlight my continuing contention that Barbarians simply haven't been Done Right in Civ games.

1. They are - and never were Always Hostile. In fact, they should be a source of Trading partner(s) for at east the first half of the game, which would dramatically change the Resource game as well. No Iron - trade with the Pannonians for it. No Oil - get permission to build oil wells from the Persians (a distinctly minor power by the late nineteenth century when oil started to become important)

2. When they are Hostile, they should be much, much more dangerous. Sacking the port of Rome, gobbling up a bunch of colonial cities, putting the Fear of Goth into frontiers and frontier cities, causing various walls to be built in China, Persia, Britain, North Africa, etc. They were far more than a 'continuous nuisance' which is all they are now.

3. The were never as Static as they are and have been in the games. The 'sudden eruptions' that were the only Barbarian Eansion mechanic of previous Civ iterations were, in fact, a result of long-term Expansion: Germanic tribes that started as a bunch of chiefs each with their own small band of warriors, to Tribal Confederations of warriors who had worked as mercenaries to the Romans long enough that they were better armed, more numerous, and more united than before - and so finally overran the frontiers, because they were already on both sides of the frontiers manning the defenses and mounting the attacks. Tang China's aristocracy was in a large percentage 'Northern Barbarians' who provided the armored mounted lancers and bowmen that were the striking power of the Tang armies, a result of long-term Policy Decisions on China's part that are absolutely impossible in Civ.

In short, instead of simply a Deus ex Machina to provide a set of mediocre non-Civ opponents in the game, 'Barbarians' should be a much more dynamic part of the game, providing potential Opposition, Trading Partners, sources for Mercenaries and Immigrants and even Technology (note that the spoked wheel chariot, composite bow, and lost-wax casting techniques may have all originated among the central Asian 'Barbarians')

 

[aieeegrunt]

Sounds to me like the Gordian Knot here is removing the distinction between Goodie Huts, Barbarian Huts, City States, and possibly Civs themselves.

This would have an additional effect of simplifying and streamlining a lot of mechanics.

Just make them all civs.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Sounds to me like the Gordian Knot here is removing the distinction between Goodie Huts, Barbarian Huts, City States, and possibly Civs themselves.

This would have an additional effect of simplifying and streamlining a lot of mechanics.

Just make them all civs.

Well, in Civ VI now all Civs and City States start as Settlers - so we're half-way there already . . .

I think, though, that the game does need a variety of political entities on the map, so making Everything identical is a bit too much. In World History, there has always been room for the Albanias and Zaporozhian Cossacks as well as the Imperial Chinas, Russias and Romes.

But the artificial division between ephemeral 'Goodie Huts' and permanently hostile 'barbarians' needs to go. I've posted on this before, but by combining the two into a category of Non-Playable Statelets or Settlements we could get a whole lot more usefulness from both of them, and a whole lot more options in the game. Being able to trade for resources from them alone would remove a lot of the current (and forever) frustration with maps that withhold oil or iron that you desperately need because your neighbors are Zulus, Mongols, Julius Caesar's Rome and a Hungary surrounded by City States and the game doesn't even give you a clue that you are missing resources until after you've played X turns and thought you were doing So Well . . .

 

[aieeegrunt]

Well, in Civ VI now all Civs and City States start as Settlers - so we're half-way there already . . .

I think, though, that the game does need a variety of politicfal entities on the map, so making Everything identical is a bit too much. In World History, there has always been room for the Albanias and Zaporozhian Cossacks as well as the Imperial Chinas, Russias and Romes.

But the artificial division between ephemeral 'Goodie Huts' and permanently hostile 'barbarians' needs to go. I've posted on this before, but by combining the two into a category of Non-Playable Statelets or Settlements we could get a whole lot more usefulness from both of them, and a whole lot more options in the game. Being able to trade for resources from them alone would remove a lot of the current (and forever) frustration with maps that withhold oil or iron that you desperately need because your neighbors are Zulus, Mongols, Julius Caesar's Rome and a Hungary surrounded by City States and the game doesn't even give you a clue that you are missing resources until after you've played X turns and thought you were doing So Well . . .

The resource stystem in Civ with respect to units needs to be removed, period. It’s terrible from both a gameplay (the “no iron = restart” meme) as you point out. and a history perspective.

Germany is the poster boy for this, being able to wage major wars from the Gunpowder to the Atomic age despite having in Civ terms having access to Coal and nothing else, and usually being blockaded. I can’t think of a more extreme example.

 

[BuchiTaton]

Strategic resources as a "must" to build could be replaced by turn them into big discounts for those units, so player would still have both the chance to access to any unit but a clear advantage if they control those resources.

About the distinction of barbarians role. The Barbarian Clans mode showed that they could be more useful and interesting that the previous spam of anoying hostile units, this mode is also the first step to unified BC and CS in the same non-playable "minor civs" that would be natural to have in CIV7.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

The resource stystem in Civ with respect to units needs to be removed, period. It’s terrible from both a gameplay (the “no iron = restart” meme) as you point out. and a history perspective.

Germany is the poster boy for this, being able to wage major wars from the Gunpowder to the Atomic age despite having in Civ terms having access to Coal and nothing else, and usually being blockaded. I can’t think of a more extreme example.

Actually, Germany is more of a posterboy for a Resource system. Read Tooze's Wages of Destruction, a massive work on Germany's war economy 1939 - 1945, which shows graphically that Germanys war effort was hamstrung by shortages in raw materials, especially Oil, but also manpower, trained workers, food, and industrial organization, which last was, frankly, abysmal until half-way through the war. She got by by conquering just enough of everything (coal and iron from France and Belgium and forced sales from Sweden, oil from Rumania, alloy metals like chromium and nickle from occupied USSR) to stagger on - and massive use of artificial resources like oil and rubber made from coal using advanced industrial chemical processes pioneered by the German chemical industry.

WWI was somewhat less Resource intensive, but by 1918 Germany was out of men: the average unit on the western front was at 50% or less strength because they simply could not replace casualties any more, and contrary to the Nazi 'stab in the back' Myth, it was the German general staff that begged the Kaiser to ask for an armistice, not the civilians that 'forced' the generals to capitulate.

All of which is beside the point: until the Industrial Era and the requirements for Industrial Quantities of materials, like iron and coal by the thousands of tons to build railroads and steamships, there is sim[ly no historical evidence for lack of raw materials putting any crimp in any production anywhere. You needed access to copper and iron ores to figure out how to smelt and work copper, bronze and iron/steel, but there was always somebody willing to haul it to you from somewhere if you were willing to pay for it, because the quantities were measured in tons, not thousands of tons.

 

[civac]

Didn't they trade around tin between Greece, Egypt, Hittites, Mespotamia? I assmume that would possibly be subject to disruption.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Sounds to me like the Gordian Knot here is removing the distinction between Goodie Huts, Barbarian Huts, City States, and possibly Civs themselves.

This would have an additional effect of simplifying and streamlining a lot of mechanics.

Just make them all civs.

You would still need a distinction between playable civs, and minor civilizations, in my opinion. Those would be the "goodie huts" and "barbarian camps" which could eventually turn into city-states.

 

[Naokaukodem]

You would still need a distinction between playable civs, and minor civilizations, in my opinion. Those would be the "goodie huts" and "barbarian camps" which could eventually turn into city-states.

I very much dislike the term of "minor civilization". It's like an acknowledgement of weakness of the need to resort to this type of distinction in how to identify this or that group and in how you should consider them gameplay wise. Not only it sounds as a failure conceptually, but i'm not sure any player that its civ is labelled "minor" would appreciate it.

I already threw a draft of what could possibly be a system where you can play different types of civilizations equally, at least two times (if not 3), and everytime it got shunned for some reason. (if I had to guess this might be due to the animosity some of you have for the "no leaders" idea)

Here it is : (again)

- Nomadism (Basics for all)

- Civilization (Civility ?) [>City-State]
Unlocks Agriculture / Ability to have cities beyond size 3.
Locks Pastoralism

- Organization [>Empires/Kingdoms]
Unlocks Settlers / Ability to manage directly several cities
Free Settler

- Pastoralism
Unlocks Military Tech Tree 2 (prevalent at about AD 1200)
Unlocks the Horde (1 pop = 1 military unit + support)
Locks Civilization

- Clans
Unlocks Clans (ability to have allied cities)

- Barbarism
Unlocks Military Tech Tree 1 (prevalent at about AD 400)

Note that this is incomplete and that now I realize it, it would be more of the spirit of Civ5 social policies : you can choose both Civilization and Organization to play more like traditional Civ, but you would be kind of limited for the other choices... (as to the fact that if you take only "Barbarism" and nothing else, I guess you could still produce several encampments of size 3 but wouldn't have direct control of them - but ideally they couild build units or give some military production to your capital, something like that I don't know Edit : I guess if you only pick Barbarism you would have a camp and would conquer other civs with military prevalence early, and you might not be able to annex the conquered cities like it was an option in Civ5, I say "may")

Of course that's just a draft, elligeable for changes and more importantly, suggestions from you folks.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Didn't they trade around tin between Greece, Egypt, Hittites, Mespotamia? I assmume that would possibly be subject to disruption.

The Near East and Mediterranean Basin states got most of their tin from Anatolia, Central Asia, and later, from Cornwall in England. There's some evidence that they were shipping it from England either overland or around the Bay of Biscay as early as 2000 BCE, the other sources much earlier.

Throughly agree that 'minor civilization' is a term that pre-defines something that should be determined by in-game actions. As a default term, I've started referring to anything not a 'playable' Civ as an NPC = Non-Playable Civ, because I want to include both City States and Settlements - my catch-all for Goodie Huts and Barbarian Camps as a single type: permanently on the map, acting either as Hostile (Barbarian Camps now), Friendly (Goodie Huts but largely permanent) and Neutral (can go either way , depending on in-game Events, only some of them Player Determined)

As to Minor States like goodie huts or Barbarian Camps becoming City States, I have enjoyed the Camp to CS mechanic in the Barbarian Clans Option, but I'd like to see an option to go One Step Further and let the (rare) City State become a 'regular' Civilization. Given that there are always extra Civs in the game system you did not have at start of the game you are playing, this would be a way of adding a New Face into the game during play. I'm getting really, really tried of having the basic structure of the World set at 4000 BCE and no new states added Forever, just subtractions due to pursuit of Domination Victory . . .

Finally, @Naokaukodem, IF Civ VII was to keep the 4000 BCE start date, then I'd make it a Starting Decision, with Limitations:

First, everybody starts as Nomads (Hunter-Gatherers), but On Foot.

IF you have Horses in your Starting Radius at the end of the first turn (or later), you can select Pastoralism, immediately get Animal Domestication, and start Herding. You wouldn't get Horde until somewhat later, though: while you could ride horses right away, you don't start with any decent weapons that can be used from horseback so your initial 'riders' are pretty weak. That will change before the Classical Era, though.

IF you have any of the Food Resources in your Radius: Maize, Wheat, Rice then you can pick up Agriculture, get your Settler, and start down the 'normal' Civ development path.

IF you are on the coast, you can pick up Fishing/Boating Tech, a Settler, and build your coastal city, start building (very primitifve) Boats, and start exploring the watery environs.

Being able to get much out of neighboring cities other than by Trade requires something like Bureaucracy or Heirarchy and even then a 'real' Empire is Classical Era: while Sumer, Akkad and other early states tried conquering their neighbors, they were also beset with Rebellions on a near-constant basis and, of course, the Bronze Age Ancient Era states largely collapsed just before the 'Classical' Era started up all around the Mediterranean Basin.

There should also be some mechanic for 'jump starting' the initial Turn. It's easy to forget that any starting date selected comes after some Technologies and social developments have already taken place, unless you backdate the game to 2,000,000 BCE or so with an initial Tech of "climb down out of the trees, stand on your hind legs and start carrying things with your forelegs"

For 4000 BCE, for instance, Pottery, Boating, Fishing, Agriculture, Animal Domestication, Weaving, and Trade are already well-established in many parts of the world, so it should be possible for somebody at the start to pick up any of them or have more than one of them (my candidates: Trade and Pottery, which were nearly universal already) as Starting Technologies/Social Policies.

 

[BuchiTaton]

I very much dislike the term of "minor civilization". It's like an acknowledgement of weakness of the need to resort to this type of distinction in how to identify this or that group and in how you should consider them gameplay wise. Not only it sounds as a failure conceptually, but i'm not sure any player that its civ is labelled "minor" would appreciate it.

The use of "minor civ" is a name holder for non-playable civs, there are options for example the use of Nations, pointing out that here the use of the term Nation is like in its original classical way and NOT in the modern "Nation State" definiton. Nation is also used to refer respectfully to non sovereign peoples/cultures inside/between multinational states.
By contrast CIV traditionaly use the term "Empire" for the playable civs. Also remember that the way CIV use "Civilization" is far from the regular way this term is used. Civilization proper is more about broad groups of entities that share common social, technological, cultural, economic and historical elements while in CIV any playable state turns to be a "civilization". Or are we going to defend the idea of a Canadian "civilization"?

 

[luca 83]

Yes, right now and forever in Civ the population has been divided into the people of the Civs, some ephemeral inhabitants of the 'goodie huts' , and infinite and forever Barbarians who have no other activity than to attack the Civs. This is both simple-minded and, frankly, insulting to the 'barbarians' - and it makes for a dull, predictable game.​

​

IRL, the pastoral groups of Central Asia were always more interested in Trading than Raiding: the Long Wall (Great Wall) of China was, in fact, originally built not to keep the 'Northern Barbarians' out, but to control where they came in to trade, so the trade could be properly taxed by the Chinese government. The famous Scythian goldwork now gracing museums from New York to Saint Petersburg was mostly made by Greeks because the Scythians were really good customers and paid very well for such craftsmanship.​

​

And the infamous Barbarian German tribes that supposedly constantly raided the Roman border? Not so much. In fact, a minor tribe called the Mattiachi, who lived right across the Rhine from Mantiacum (modern Mainz), the largest Roman military base north of Italy (2 full legions plus auxiliaries, making it by far the largest urban concentration of any kind north of Italy) invited Romans across the river, because they had a hot spring in the middle of their settlement, and basically set up a Tourist Trap to lure hot bath-loving Romans to come and take the waters - and trade. By 400 CE they were incorporated as a Roman town into the Empire - the newly-established Roman border that stretched around it in a wide arc is still marked by replica Roman mile forts in the Taunus Mountains to the north and east. Oh, and the Matti's original village is now the city of Wiesbaden - "Bath in the Meadow".​

​

The relations between Non-Civ and Civ components of the population were much more complex than simple eternal enimity and should be much more complex in the game. This could be as simple as incorporating the Goodie Huts and Barbarian Camps into the same set of smaller settlements in the game, or it could involve a complex rendering of individual tribes, polities, nomads, city states, etc. But it needs to be something beyond the simplistic strife which is all we have now.​

the government of odoacer and the invasion got a created the Barbarian kingdoms in Italy and the vandals in Spain and then the Visigoths and the Franks in France, and the Germans and Bavarians etc. in Europe the barbarians should be able to merge with other civilizations in order to create new civilizations and new governments

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

the government of odoacer and the invasion got a created the Barbarian kingdoms in Italy and the vandals in Spain and then the Visigoths and the Franks in France, and the Germans and Bavarians etc. in Europe the barbarians should be able to merge with other civilizations in order to create new civilizations and new governments

The pattern of 'barbarian' conquest and then assimilation of traits from the conquered is not just European: everytime the Northern Barbarians took over part of China, they ended up becoming more Chinese than Barbarian, and a case could be made that the same thing happened when the relatively unsophisticated Arabian tribes conquered the Near Eastern urban states: they became more Near Eastern in culture and civic/social forms than the cities became Arab.

The European Post-Roman states all seem to have shared one characteristic: they all tried to keep as much of the Imperial civic structure as they could: magistrates, local government, local trade - their success was limited and patchy, because they did not control the sheer scale of resources that the Roman Empire had, and they were trying to maintain a civic structure without the same cultural background and experience with civic structures. Still, there is evidence of Roman titles and nominal administrative forms lasting for centuries in Spain, Italy, France, although determining how much actual 'Roman like' administration was still going on is difficult and still an object of study.

That means, in game the pattern should be that after a conquest, there would be a new hybrid form of social/civic structure formed, and what exactly is kept should depend on the level or sophistication of the structures of the conquering group: a truely unsophisticated 'barbarian' (tribal, clan) social structure simply doesn't have the skills needed to maintain a literate, trained bureaucratic administration for very long. The pattern should be, I would think, that both the conquered and the conquering go through changes in the process, not just the former.

 

[aieeegrunt]

Strategic resources as a "must" to build could be replaced by turn them into big discounts for those units, so player would still have both the chance to access to any unit but a clear advantage if they control those resources.

About the distinction of barbarians role. The Barbarian Clans mode showed that they could be more useful and interesting that the previous spam of anoying hostile units, this mode is also the first step to unified BC and CS in the same non-playable "minor civs" that would be natural to have in CIV7.

There is a mod that does exactly that that I play with

Actually, Germany is more of a posterboy for a Resource system. Read Tooze's Wages of Destruction, a massive work on Germany's war economy 1939 - 1945, which shows graphically that Germanys war effort was hamstrung by shortages in raw materials, especially Oil, but also manpower, trained workers, food, and industrial organization, which last was, frankly, abysmal until half-way through the war. She got by by conquering just enough of everything (coal and iron from France and Belgium and forced sales from Sweden, oil from Rumania, alloy metals like chromium and nickle from occupied USSR) to stagger on - and massive use of artificial resources like oil and rubber made from coal using advanced industrial chemical processes pioneered by the German chemical industry.

WWI was somewhat less Resource intensive, but by 1918 Germany was out of men: the average unit on the western front was at 50% or less strength because they simply could not replace casualties any more, and contrary to the Nazi 'stab in the back' Myth, it was the German general staff that begged the Kaiser to ask for an armistice, not the civilians that 'forced' the generals to capitulate.

All of which is beside the point: until the Industrial Era and the requirements for Industrial Quantities of materials, like iron and coal by the thousands of tons to build railroads and steamships, there is sim[ly no historical evidence for lack of raw materials putting any crimp in any production anywhere. You needed access to copper and iron ores to figure out how to smelt and work copper, bronze and iron/steel, but there was always somebody willing to haul it to you from somewhere if you were willing to pay for it, because the quantities were measured in tons, not thousands of tons.

Under the Civ resource system German would not have been able to build any gunpowder units for the entirety of the 7 years war, the Napoleonic Wars etc

It would not have been able to build Infantry, Tanks or aircraft during either of the world wars.

This is clearly ridiculous. It’s even more ridiculous when you consider the intensity of many of those conflicts. Germany was making more and larger tanks in a month in 1944 than it did for the entire year of 1939.

Frederick the Great had to completely replace his entire artillery park at least twice during the 7 years war; clearly unaware that he had no nitre and thus shouldn’t have been able to build any in the first place

The pattern of 'barbarian' conquest and then assimilation of traits from the conquered is not just European: everytime the Northern Barbarians took over part of China, they ended up becoming more Chinese than Barbarian, and a case could be made that the same thing happened when the relatively unsophisticated Arabian tribes conquered the Near Eastern urban states: they became more Near Eastern in culture and civic/social forms than the cities became Arab.

The European Post-Roman states all seem to have shared one characteristic: they all tried to keep as much of the Imperial civic structure as they could: magistrates, local government, local trade - their success was limited and patchy, because they did not control the sheer scale of resources that the Roman Empire had, and they were trying to maintain a civic structure without the same cultural background and experience with civic structures. Still, there is evidence of Roman titles and nominal administrative forms lasting for centuries in Spain, Italy, France, although determining how much actual 'Roman like' administration was still going on is difficult and still an object of study.

That means, in game the pattern should be that after a conquest, there would be a new hybrid form of social/civic structure formed, and what exactly is kept should depend on the level or sophistication of the structures of the conquering group: a truely unsophisticated 'barbarian' (tribal, clan) social structure simply doesn't have the skills needed to maintain a literate, trained bureaucratic administration for very long. The pattern should be, I would think, that both the conquered and the conquering go through changes in the process, not just the former.

We already had this mechanic and it worked perfect in Civ3 where individual pops had a cultural identity and it’s “intensity” was determined by how much culture your civ generated.

Conquoring a foreign city, the amount of unrest, rebellion and how quickly the city assimilated to you was directly related to the difference in culture power

A high culture civ conquoring a city from a low culture one could expect that city to assimilate quickly. A low culture civ going on a conquor spree is going to end up like the Northern tribes in China; the city rapidly “flips” back to being Chinese.

It was perfect. A “paint the map” type player that builds nothing but an army and neglects the civilization part of the game will find their conquests ephemeral at best

Perfectly balanced, as all things should be

I have no idea why this got taken out. Civ6 had the right idea that a system like this was needed, but instead we got the nonsense that is Loyalty

 

[Patine]

We already had this mechanic and it worked perfect in Civ3 where individual pops had a cultural identity and it’s “intensity” was determined by how much culture your civ generated.

Conquoring a foreign city, the amount of unrest, rebellion and how quickly the city assimilated to you was directly related to the difference in culture power

A high culture civ conquoring a city from a low culture one could expect that city to assimilate quickly. A low culture civ going on a conquor spree is going to end up like the Northern tribes in China; the city rapidly “flips” back to being Chinese.

It was perfect. A “paint the map” type player that builds nothing but an army and neglects the civilization part of the game will find their conquests ephemeral at best

Perfectly balanced, as all things should be

I have no idea why this got taken out. Civ6 had the right idea that a system like this was needed, but instead we got the nonsense that is Loyalty

Admittedly, Civ3 was a very simplistic and early mechanic - with cultural borders lurching forward arbitrarily and abruptly, and no intersticial phase of being influenced between being near cultural border, and then suddenly flipped - and whiich I believe Boris is saying could be expanded upon, and the Civ3 mechanic did not, at all, have the impact he discussed of a low-culture civ brute force conquering a high-culture civ, but still being in the cultural shadow of emulation of what they conquered. I wouldn't say it worked, "perfectly."

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Frederick the Great had to completely replace his entire artillery park at least twice during the 7 years war; clearly unaware that he had no nitre and thus shouldn’t have been able to build any in the first place

This is as much a product of a specific screw-up in the Resource system in Civ VI as it is the general Resource system: Nitrates or Niter should never have been a 'natural' Resource, because less than a century after gunpowder became a general requirement for early Bombards and hand guns, Nitraries were established - Nitre Factories, in effect - to artificially produce as much of the stuff as the prevailing governments needed. After the end of the 14th century (1390 - 1400 CE) nobody had to rely on any 'natural' deposits of niter or nitrates for their supplies. In that 10 year period the average price of gunpowder fell from 41 florins to 16 florins per hundredweight as the artificially-produced supplies increased faster than the requirements. When demand ballooned in the late 19th century, Chemical Engineering (the Haber Process, among other techniques) allowed the necessary materials to be produced as needed in virtually any quantity.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I very much dislike the term of "minor civilization". It's like an acknowledgement of weakness of the need to resort to this type of distinction in how to identify this or that group and in how you should consider them gameplay wise. Not only it sounds as a failure conceptually, but i'm not sure any player that its civ is labelled "minor" would appreciate it.

The term "minor civilization" wouldn't appear in the game at all. In fact, no playable civs would be considered "minor" civilizations, but they would all be "major" civilizations as they are now. I suppose calling all of the city-states and tribal settlements etc., non playable factions would equally work.