Little things from prior games that I hope are in Civ 7

[Boris Gudenuf]

The Canton system or Canton Regulation was part of a multi-step process that resulted in he overall excellence of the Prussian army by mid-18th century, but it didn't go into effect until 1733, so was not part of my discussion of the earlier rise of the Prussian military.
And the Canton System was established by steps: when Friedrich Wilhelm (Fred the Great's father) became king in 1713 he abolished the old Prussian militia system right away, established universal and life-long service for everyone, and put recruiting under the regimental army officers. That system led to massive abuse and even outright revolt and the occasional murder of regimental officers, so in 1721 the king abolished 'coercive recruiting', but in 1722 he also had to publish edicts against emigration by potential recruits, because his population was running away rather than submit to the tender mercies of the still-forcible recruiters. The problem was that the regiments needed recruits, but the kingdom needed people working at civilian jobs and paying taxes, so that the practice began of giving 'furloughs' to recruits so they could keep working while nominally in uniform. The Canton Regulation of 1733 simply codified this practice: even when they were 'in uniform', troops were only required for military duties (mostly drill and firing practice) during the morning: after noon they were released to pursue their civilian jobs, so that both the regiments and the state got their services virtually simultaneously.

 

[luca 83]

The Canton system or Canton Regulation was part of a multi-step process that resulted in he overall excellence of the Prussian army by mid-18th century, but it didn't go into effect until 1733, so was not part of my discussion of the earlier rise of the Prussian military.
And the Canton System was established by steps: when Friedrich Wilhelm (Fred the Great's father) became king in 1713 he abolished the old Prussian militia system right away, established universal and life-long service for everyone, and put recruiting under the regimental army officers. That system led to massive abuse and even outright revolt and the occasional murder of regimental officers, so in 1721 the king abolished 'coercive recruiting', but in 1722 he also had to publish edicts against emigration by potential recruits, because his population was running away rather than submit to the tender mercies of the still-forcible recruiters. The problem was that the regiments needed recruits, but the kingdom needed people working at civilian jobs and paying taxes, so that the practice began of giving 'furloughs' to recruits so they could keep working while nominally in uniform. The Canton Regulation of 1733 simply codified this practice: even when they were 'in uniform', troops were only required for military duties (mostly drill and firing practice) during the morning: after noon they were released to pursue their civilian jobs, so that both the regiments and the state got their services virtually simultaneously.

An attempt was made with Saxony to create a South Germanic league, but Ludwig and his ministers were to blame. Prussia could still have been defeated during the Austro-Prussian war, and if the French had won at Sedan, German unity would not have happened.

 

[Patine]

The Canton system or Canton Regulation was part of a multi-step process that resulted in he overall excellence of the Prussian army by mid-18th century, but it didn't go into effect until 1733, so was not part of my discussion of the earlier rise of the Prussian military.
And the Canton System was established by steps: when Friedrich Wilhelm (Fred the Great's father) became king in 1713 he abolished the old Prussian militia system right away, established universal and life-long service for everyone, and put recruiting under the regimental army officers. That system led to massive abuse and even outright revolt and the occasional murder of regimental officers, so in 1721 the king abolished 'coercive recruiting', but in 1722 he also had to publish edicts against emigration by potential recruits, because his population was running away rather than submit to the tender mercies of the still-forcible recruiters. The problem was that the regiments needed recruits, but the kingdom needed people working at civilian jobs and paying taxes, so that the practice began of giving 'furloughs' to recruits so they could keep working while nominally in uniform. The Canton Regulation of 1733 simply codified this practice: even when they were 'in uniform', troops were only required for military duties (mostly drill and firing practice) during the morning: after noon they were released to pursue their civilian jobs, so that both the regiments and the state got their services virtually simultaneously.

And hence, many later nations' National Guard, National Reserves, National Militias, the British Yeomanry, Lenin and Mao's Red Guards, the Iranian Basij, and Cuba's Territorial Troops Militia and Labor Youth Army all, more or less, emulate the same core idea and notion.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

And hence, many later nations' National Guard, National Reserves, National Militias, the British Yeomanry, Lenin and Mao's Red Guards, the Iranian Basij, and Cuba's Territorial Troops Militia and Labor Youth Army all, more or less, emulate the same core idea and notion.

There is an interesting historical interaction between population and the military of any nation which no game, to my knowedge, has ever gotten quite right.

At the two ends: tribal/neolithic/pastoral and modern Industrial Warfare, there is an extreme competition for manpower between the 'civilian' economy and the military forces.

At the early end, this is because there are very few 'unemployed' people in any tribal economy. Consequently, their concepts of 'warfare' tend to be a lot less bloody than 'civilized' notions: neither they nor their contemporary foes can afford to lose any or many people to combat: a couple of casualties and they are ready to go home and start negotiating. It was noted decades ago in studies of modern stone-age tribes (South America, Africa and Southeast Asia) that their battles tended to be very stylized an ended when the first man went down dead or seriously wounded. This, by the ay, makes the suicidally aggressive Barbarian Horde largely a myth: they'd steal anything not nailed down, but couldn't afford to lose a large portion of their force doing it.

At the late end, armies of the wars since the advent of industrial war have tended more and more to include every physically capable man in the state - which meant that to man the industry, there was always a major conflict between the industrial part of the state and the military side: they both wanted/needed all the labor they could get, and they both wanted the same portion of the population: young, physically fit males.

In between, not so much. While there were states (like Sparta for a prime example) who 'mobilized' virtually their entire adult male population, most never even came close, even in the same culture: Athens fielded about 10,000 Hoplites from an adult male population variously estimated at 50,000 - 100,000 men - 10 - 20% in the army, then, and an army which mostly only campaigned in the summer months and was home in time for the harvest. Imperial Rome, with much larger and more permanent military requirements, fielded about 500,000 men at its peak out of a population of 50,000,000: 1% of the population, maybe 3 - 5% of the adult males. I don't have exact figures for the Chinese forces of the various Dynasties, but those I have seen appear similar: Tang China fielded armies of up to 80,000 men, but on a population base of 60,000,000 or more.

So, while for most of the game the military units make very small demands on the total population, in game terms there comes a point where Production (including, of course, Food Production) starts to compete with the Military for Population Points. That means any historical 4X, at some point around the Early Modern/Industrial transition, should start modeling the competition for manpower between the new Mass Armies and the Economy which puts an extra stress on the entire society. This, in turn, also leads to various expedients to try to use the manpower twice: as militant National Guards/Territorials/Militia so that they are still available for Industry while also maintaining a 'military' force.

 

[luca 83]

In a Turkish context such as Germany, small states count, just as they did in Italy during the Renaissance

 

[Bonyduck Campersang]

In a Turkish context such as Germany, small states count, just as they did in Italy during the Renaissance

So city-states?

 

[luca 83]

So city-states?

No , medium-sized states and territories , or small ones with a culture similar to that , or mixed , of the great empires , with the possibility of merging , federating or , being conquered

 

[Bonyduck Campersang]

No , medium-sized states and territories , or small ones with a culture similar to that , or mixed , of the great empires , with the possibility of merging , federating or , being conquered

So effectively, city-states.

I've thought there must be a better way to represent lesser polities, especially when sometimes major civs can also have just one city, and the restriction on city-states to not being able to settle new cities seems too artificially contrived immersion-wise. I think a better implementation would be simply to replace city-states (and barbarians) with entities called 'minor civs', with varying degrees of 'civilisation' (or centralisation? for want of a better term) (one end being the conventional marauding, pillaging barbarians in the Civ series, the other being smaller versions of major civs). This gets rid of the rather problematic appellation of 'barbarians' and allows for the possibility of low-level minor civs gradually 'civilising' (again, for want of a better term) as the game progresses.

 

[BuchiTaton]

The way civ traditionaly portrait Barbarians is quite "problematic" and out dated. The recent implementation of Barbarian Clans was a steep in the right direction, that more complex interaction and relation to City States is a chance to have a new form of "minor (non playable) civs" in CIV7. This new form could be a mix of current BC and CS, they could be called Nations to differentiate them from the playable Empires.

You know "minor civs" are limited to be full "main civs" for practical and mechanical reasons, for example game ballance, lack of historical information for some elements of their design like leaders, the cost and time of development, and of course the finite number of civs that can make it into the game.

By the way, talking about descentralized German, Turkish, Italian, Haudenosaunee, etc. States. Do some people forget that we play civilizations?
The traditional notion of civilization is a broad group of peoples and states that share some common elements, things like cultural, economic, technological and institutional ways. Under this definition civs like Celts and Polynesians were as valid as Greeks and Maya. But now I find many people with a state centric notion of what a civ is (cough cough Canadian civilization ).

If CIV represent civilizations then is 100% valid for the player (that like AI leaders are not a mere mortal ruler) to manage a descentralized group of states as a entity.
So how to represent that in a game like CIV? Easy, having some mechanic related to your cities. So, you can select a way of administration and to gain bonus from it when your cities are Provinces, other when they are States, and other when they are Vassals.
There you go, differentitation, decision and flavor.

 

[Phrozen]

Faster movement along rivers.

 

[aieeegrunt]

So effectively, city-states.

I've thought there must be a better way to represent lesser polities, especially when sometimes major civs can also have just one city, and the restriction on city-states to not being able to settle new cities seems too artificially contrived immersion-wise. I think a better implementation would be simply to replace city-states (and barbarians) with entities called 'minor civs', with varying degrees of 'civilisation' (or centralisation? for want of a better term) (one end being the conventional marauding, pillaging barbarians in the Civ series, the other being smaller versions of major civs). This gets rid of the rather problematic appellation of 'barbarians' and allows for the possibility of low-level minor civs gradually 'civilising' (again, for want of a better term) as the game progresses.

Remove the concept of Barbarians, and have a new class of city states

Jerks

The Jerk class is like the Militaristic state except with an even bigger focus on military units, and is basically hostile to everyone.

Take the Barbarian Clans Interactions, and apply them to all city states.

 

[luca 83]

Remove the concept of Barbarians, and have a new class of city states

Jerks

The Jerk class is like the Militaristic state except with an even bigger focus on military units, and is basically hostile to everyone.

Take the Barbarian Clans Interactions, and apply them to all city states.

That would be wrong most barbarians were nomads later integrated into western societies the Vandals, the Franks, the Lombards, the Visigoths

 

[Patine]

That would be wrong most barbarians were nomads later integrated into western societies the Vandals, the Franks, the Lombards, the Visigoths

The Lombards and Visigoths are not likely to be seperate civ's of their own. Maybe the Franks, but competing with France AND Germany for a civ slot is a stif challenge.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Remove the concept of Barbarians, and have a new class of city states

Jerks

The Jerk class is like the Militaristic state except with an even bigger focus on military units, and is basically hostile to everyone.

Take the Barbarian Clans Interactions, and apply them to all city states.

So, basically, change the name of Barbarians to Jerks?

Nah.

Right now, there is a sort of three tier Structure in the game: Barbarians, City States, Civilizations, with Barbarians being almost entirely One-Dimensional: Always Hostile unless they are (in Barbarian Clans) hiring Mercenary units to you.
Instead, let's make 'Barbarians' full-functional First Tier 'Political Entities' (I've posted this before: for anybody that actually reads old Posts and remembers them, bear with me here)

Settlements are independents on the map smaller than City States.

They can be Hostile (basically, current Barbarian Mode), Neutral, or Peaceful.

Peaceful are like current Tribal Huts, but stay on the map unless they all decide to migrate into your Civ and add Civilian Units (population points) to your Civ. They can also trade Resources, Gold, Maps, - all the stuff you get from Tribal Huts now, except that most of them do NOT remove the Settlement.

Neutral do nothing initially, but may become Hostile or Peaceful depending on diplomatic or military actions by Civs.

The only thing to add to that is the possibility of Dynamic Non-Civ Factions.

Settlements, with enough trade and other benign influences, might grow into City States (as Barbarians can in Barbarian Clans now)

City States in turn could grow into NPMCs - Non Playable Minor Civilizations which can Ally, Trade, produce their own diplomatic activity, maybe even research their own Technology and develop their own Civic and Social Policy activity, but only through very rare and exceptional circumstances would they grow bigger than, say, 2 - 3 cities.

Of course, some Modder will instantly produce a Mod making them playable, but the idea is that they would be another class of Entities on the map to interact with in various ways. For instance, they may have Unique military or civilian Units who, if Allied, would act with yours or be available even if Neutral to buy as mercenaries, but a simple change of envoys would not make them change sides. They could not only develop their own Trade Routes, they could trade various resources and/or Units to you, possibly cheaper or some not available from 'regular' Civs on the map.

As a Fur Instance, a Minor Civ might be the Numidians, who if allied provide Numidian Light Cavalry, a short-range ranged unit that can move after attacking, and trade North African Elephants to you to produce your own elephant units - two 'unique' products only available from that Minor Civ. Another example (also from the classical Mediterranian, sorry!) might be the Kingdom of Epirus, which could provide not only a large mercenary army, but also a Great General to lead it - Pyrrhus.

And, a Unique Civilization game bonus, because they would not require the animated Leader boards and voice actors, the range of Minor Civs would be much, much wider than for 'regular' playable Civs in the game, and could include many more of the 'marginal' groups of the type that people keep trying to shoehorn into a regular Civ framework, like the Sami, Kingdom of Colchis, the Swiss Confederacy (Unique mercenary troops Up The Kazoo: pikemen, fusiliers, Swiss Guards!), the Picts, Blemye, Benin, etc.

 

[luca 83]

So, basically, change the name of Barbarians to Jerks?

Nah.

Right now, there is a sort of three tier Structure in the game: Barbarians, City States, Civilizations, with Barbarians being almost entirely One-Dimensional: Always Hostile unless they are (in Barbarian Clans) hiring Mercenary units to you.
Instead, let's make 'Barbarians' full-functional First Tier 'Political Entities' (I've posted this before: for anybody that actually reads old Posts and remembers them, bear with me here)

Settlements are independents on the map smaller than City States.

They can be Hostile (basically, current Barbarian Mode), Neutral, or Peaceful.

Peaceful are like current Tribal Huts, but stay on the map unless they all decide to migrate into your Civ and add Civilian Units (population points) to your Civ. They can also trade Resources, Gold, Maps, - all the stuff you get from Tribal Huts now, except that most of them do NOT remove the Settlement.

Neutral do nothing initially, but may become Hostile or Peaceful depending on diplomatic or military actions by Civs.

The only thing to add to that is the possibility of Dynamic Non-Civ Factions.

Settlements, with enough trade and other benign influences, might grow into City States (as Barbarians can in Barbarian Clans now)

City States in turn could grow into NPMCs - Non Playable Minor Civilizations which can Ally, Trade, produce their own diplomatic activity, maybe even research their own Technology and develop their own Civic and Social Policy activity, but only through very rare and exceptional circumstances would they grow bigger than, say, 2 - 3 cities.

Of course, some Modder will instantly produce a Mod making them playable, but the idea is that they would be another class of Entities on the map to interact with in various ways. For instance, they may have Unique military or civilian Units who, if Allied, would act with yours or be available even if Neutral to buy as mercenaries, but a simple change of envoys would not make them change sides. They could not only develop their own Trade Routes, they could trade various resources and/or Units to you, possibly cheaper or some not available from 'regular' Civs on the map.

As a Fur Instance, a Minor Civ might be the Numidians, who if allied provide Numidian Light Cavalry, a short-range ranged unit that can move after attacking, and trade North African Elephants to you to produce your own elephant units - two 'unique' products only available from that Minor Civ. Another example (also from the classical Mediterranian, sorry!) might be the Kingdom of Epirus, which could provide not only a large mercenary army, but also a Great General to lead it - Pyrrhus.

And, a Unique Civilization game bonus, because they would not require the animated Leader boards and voice actors, the range of Minor Civs would be much, much wider than for 'regular' playable Civs in the game, and could include many more of the 'marginal' groups of the type that people keep trying to shoehorn into a regular Civ framework, like the Sami, Kingdom of Colchis, the Swiss Confederacy (Unique mercenary troops Up The Kazoo: pikemen, fusiliers, Swiss Guards!), the Picts, Blemye, Benin, etc.

Yes if barbarian civilizations invade peacefully, or aggressively, it changes the population anyway, Romano-Barbarian for example , even leaders and forms of government eventually, the Barbarian Roman kingdoms were not the Ronan republic

 

[Patine]

the Barbarian Roman kingdoms were not the Ronan republic

No, they definitely weren't the Roman Republic. And neither was Rome at the time. The Principate was already starting to give way to the Despotate by the time of the mass migrations and settlement.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

No, they definitely weren't the Roman Republic. And neither was Rome at the time. The Principate was already starting to give way to the Despotate by the time of the mass migrations and settlement.

Depends on which 'mass migrations' you're talking about.

The 'Indo-European" (Yamnaya Culture) migrations of roughly 3400 - 3000 BCE changed the population all over Europe from Scotland/Ireland to Greece and Italy dramatically, because they introduced Yersina Pestis (the Bubonic Plague) to Europe which largely wiped out the previous farming communities - who had themselves migrated into Europe from Anatolia about 2500 - 3000 years earlier and replaced or converted the earlier population of hunter-gatherers. Parenthetically, while the latter is before the nominal Start of Game, the former is during the 'Civ Period' and really should have some kind of representation in the future.

Back in the 4th - 3rd centuries BCE Gaulic Celts migrated, probably under pressure from excessive population back home in central Europe, and put extreme stress on both Rome/Italy and Greece (sack of Delphii, sack of Rome as results) but didn't make any difference in the local populations, except to remove a bunch of them, especially those in their military forces, from the living.

The 'mass migrations' of the Germanic peoples from roughly 300 - 375 CE on also needs clarification. First, it wasn't much of a mass. Latest estimates are that the total of people moving across Europe was about 750,000 over the period between start of migrations and the end of the western Roman Empire, or roughly 4% of the total population of that Empire - not exactly a mass replacement of the population already there, especially over a period of roughly 6 - 10 generations - even the lowest birthrate estimates indicate more people were added to the population from normal population increase than from the migration totals!

The 'Germanic' (which also included Slavs and steppe peoples like the Bulgars and Avars) invasions did make dramatic changes in the political structure (or resulting lack of it) of the western Roman Empire, but it has been argued that the migrations were not the cause of the 'fall of Rome' but the Result of it: Germans had been moving into the Empire since right after Caesar added Gaul to it, formed a large segment of the military and farming populations in parts of the Empire, and back home the German and Slavic populations were largely settled farmers, not raging fur-clad hunters wandering through the forests. Guy Halsall argues that they simply got caught up in political changes (civil wars, etc) already taking place, rather than being the root cause of any of them.

All of which is simply to note that History means to Learn By Study, and even what we think we 'know' requires revisiting every once in a while to keep up with even Ancient History!

 

[luca 83]

Depends on which 'mass migrations' you're talking about.

The 'Indo-European" (Yamnaya Culture) migrations of roughly 3400 - 3000 BCE changed the population all over Europe from Scotland/Ireland to Greece and Italy dramatically, because they introduced Yersina Pestis (the Bubonic Plague) to Europe which largely wiped out the previous farming communities - who had themselves migrated into Europe from Anatolia about 2500 - 3000 years earlier and replaced or converted the earlier population of hunter-gatherers. Parenthetically, while the latter is before the nominal Start of Game, the former is during the 'Civ Period' and really should have some kind of representation in the future.

Back in the 4th - 3rd centuries BCE Gaulic Celts migrated, probably under pressure from excessive population back home in central Europe, and put extreme stress on both Rome/Italy and Greece (sack of Delphii, sack of Rome as results) but didn't make any difference in the local populations, except to remove a bunch of them, especially those in their military forces, from the living.

The 'mass migrations' of the Germanic peoples from roughly 300 - 375 CE on also needs clarification. First, it wasn't much of a mass. Latest estimates are that the total of people moving across Europe was about 750,000 over the period between start of migrations and the end of the western Roman Empire, or roughly 4% of the total population of that Empire - not exactly a mass replacement of the population already there, especially over a period of roughly 6 - 10 generations - even the lowest birthrate estimates indicate more people were added to the population from normal population increase than from the migration totals!

The 'Germanic' (which also included Slavs and steppe peoples like the Bulgars and Avars) invasions did make dramatic changes in the political structure (or resulting lack of it) of the western Roman Empire, but it has been argued that the migrations were not the cause of the 'fall of Rome' but the Result of it: Germans had been moving into the Empire since right after Caesar added Gaul to it, formed a large segment of the military and farming populations in parts of the Empire, and back home the German and Slavic populations were largely settled farmers, not raging fur-clad hunters wandering through the forests. Guy Halsall argues that they simply got caught up in political changes (civil wars, etc) already taking place, rather than being the root cause of any of them.

All of which is simply to note that History means to Learn By Study, and even what we think we 'know' requires revisiting every once in a while to keep up with even Ancient History!

Of course it was a progressive imparbarimento, also because of the entrance of the army of barbarian men and generarali I already know! I would like to know how you can simulate in the game a possible scenario not mod but possibility,and how do you reconcile with a fixed leader Of the golden Age like Augustus, or Caesar or leader like Luigi luigi

 

[Bonyduck Campersang]

leader like Luigi luigi

who the hell is Luigi Luigi

 

[Patine]

who the hell is Luigi Luigi

Isn't that Nintendo's Mario's brother? Don't they duplicate their first names as last names, cannonically?