This game could really use an age between "classical" and "medieval"

[Krajzen]

I wouldn't argue about it in case of Civilization, but in Humankind where cultures are specific to eras, and from what I understand there are era - specific goals and stars, I think it would be really cool if there was a "Dark Ages" or "Late Antiquity Era" (roughly 200 - 900 AD, or some part of this period). I mean, currently we have this slightly awkward juxtaposition of ancient Greece being next to Huns and Goths, as well as Franks being next to England (not "Anglo - Saxons") in medieval. I also love medieval era and I dislike how in every place in culture ever it is lumped together as one uniform era. You gotta admit there is this moment, for example, when military units are neither "iron age swordmen" nor "full plate knights" but something in between.
There is also another problem - if you look closely, you will realize how damn many medieval civs are possible when compared with other eras, and how many won't ever get in.
"But what technologies would this era consist of?"
I am not afraid of this problem, because "stagnant Dark Ages" is a nonsense (especially outside Europe) and you could fill tech tree in many ways.

So, here is my vision. Just in case devs had no ideas for DLC at some point, or the game had modding enabling us something like that.

CLASSICAL AGE (it roughly fits 600 BC - 200 AD)
Contains civs such as Greece, Rome, Persia (Achaemenids), Celts (Gauls), Carthage, Maurya Empire, Han Dynasty, Scythians, Kush, Judea, Nabateans and so on. Contains some Andean civ instead of Maya. In fact, if you stretch period of this age just a bit back, you could also include Phoenicia, Babylon and Assyria here as well, and instead give ancient age civs such as Sumer (!!!), Canaan and Arameans.

MIGRATION AGE (200 AD - 900 AD) (I invented this name to make it as noneurocentric as possible)
May contain civs such as Byzantium, Axum, Goths, Huns, Franks, Sasanids, Armenia, Umayyads, Anglo - Saxons, Slavs, Khazars, Vikings, Tang Dynasty, Gupta Empire, Silla Korea, Srivijaya (first Indonesian civ), Maya and so on.

MEDIEVAL AGE (900 AD - 1450 AD)
May contain civs such as, well, still Byzantium, Medieval France, Medieval England, Kievan Rus, Normans, Medieval Italy, Turks (Seljuks, early Ottomans), Bohemia, Hungary, Moors (Al - Andalus, Morocco), Mamluks, Mongols, Timurids, medieval Indian empires, Song Dynasty, Goryeo Korea, Heian Japan, Khmers, Majapahit Indonesia, Bagan Burma, Mali, Abyssinia, Swahilli, Hausa, Aztecs, Cahokia and so on.

For me it seems all more thematically fitting with such ambitious division.

On a sidenote, I want to express how much I dislike civ's lumping early eras together and then dividing 20th century into so many lol

"But Krajzen, who would change already existing order of civs and eras, Franks belong to medieval"
I am coming from Paradox games fandom, where we are used to devs and mods doing much more insane things in the middle of game's development cycle lol

 

[j51]

Yup, maybe they'll add it in an expansion!

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

There is a sorta-accepted way to do this, although it still has problems.
One of the methods of differentiating historical periods uses the following classifications:
Classical Antiquity (up to 200 CE)
Post-Classical History ( 200 - 1500 CE)
Divided into: Early, High, and Late Middle Ages

Dividing this scheme a little differently, we could have:
Classical Era (800 BCE - 200 CE roughly)
Post-Classical Era (200 - 900 CE)
High Medieval Era (900 - 1350 CE)
Early Modern Era (1350 - 1750 CE)

The approximate temporal divisions are, frankly, arbitrary (I doubt you could find two historians who would agree on any exact divisions for any Historical Era!) but they have these advantages:
1. The Post Classical corresponds, roughly, with the rise of cavalry-based forces in Europe, the Middle East, and Asia, and the earliest use of water mill (non-animal, non-human) power in Europe and the Middle East
2. The High Medieval Era is the 'classic' Era of the Knight, the feudal social/political system, and great advances in agriculture, all in Europe, the Middle East and Asia.
3. The early Modern corresponds, roughly, to massive changes in ocean and land trade, banking and finance, growth of extremely centralized States, and the growth of Infantry based armies (pikes, then gunpowder), and ends with the approximate start of the 'Industrial Revolution', which deserves to start an entirely new Era.

In game terms (at least as we understand them so far) this division would redivide the Factions as follows:

Classical Era: Greece, Gaul, Carthage, (Republican-Early Imperial) Rome, Persia, Zhou. Olmec (and room for 3 more)
Post-Classical Era: Maya, Mauryans, Goths, Huns, Aksumite, Ghana
With Room for: Han China, Byzantium, Umayads, Carolingians
High Medieval Era: 'English', Capetian 'Franks', Abbasids, Khmer, 'Holy' Roman Empire (and room for 5 more)

And, yeah, no matter how well something like this might seem to work, it's probably not a realistic option for Initial Release unless they push that back a year or so and start over with all their Factions!

 

[mitsho]

This division makes total sense when you are trying to group together similar civs and try to tell a story. I'm all for it.

The big open question however remains gameplay as each era should feel distinct, with a new element coming into it. I right now feel how this in-between era could achieve that. But I gladly want to get surprised. Let's try

Spoiler let's try :

Neolithic Era: a few round of exploring the map [let me just reiterate how much I love that since it removes the cold start we have in civ where you have to expand fast into unknown territory]
Ancient Era: build first few cities, maybe a rush here and there, based on the knowledge of the map, you either go deep (rush to next era to use specific ability) or deep (lots of room to expand into)
Classical Era: the first big wonders, but you can also build big armies as you now have the resources (iron, horses, upkeep) needed, you further the specialization chosen before. Religions get founded. "City States" get absorbed?
Medieval Era: military gets more important. Your core cities are now sufficiently developed to pump out for whatever goal you're aiming at, but control of territory is still to be gained (castles). Other Players may now be able to disrupt you. Religions dominate diplomacy.
Early Modern Era: Oceangoing Travel -> lets settle the "empty" spaces. Gunpowder changes warfare. Ideally, people migrate on their own. Colonizers versus Indigenous People, restrictions of settlements due do diseases.
Industrial Era: What once was a good production site, isn't anymore. Coal, Steel and a Population Explosion flip the advantages and disadvantages of the cultures. Railroad allows of fast deployment of troops. Ideologies break old alliances and require attention by the player (happiness, loyalty)
Modern Era: Electricity brings in a new layer to check for cities (and disrupt them), while Flight adds another layer to Warfare. Nuclear Bombs change diplomacy. United Nations allow for specific victory points. Climate Change may disrupt other victories.

I know, that's an atrocious mix of half-knowledge, stereotypes, history and gameplay. But what I was trying was to single out things that could make each era special and memorable. I have a hard time what that middle era could be. It's specifics are migration and disruption (I'd add a change in climate in there as well), which might tie in well with a choice of: "this is a good era to transcend as most cultures here have catch-up mechanisms". But what if that disruption doesn't happen. What is the medieval era about then? Crossbows, Pikes, Trebuchets and Castles? Unless I find a unique and interesting gameplay change-up between "Migration Era" and "Medieval Era", I'm not convinced of the idea. Though - again - I would love it.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

The term "Dark Ages" is sometimes still referred to the period between the fall of Rome to the 10th century according to some scholars.

Instead of using the term dark ages they use the Early Middle Ages, so why not use the term Early Medieval Era, since they aren't shy about using both the terms Early Modern and Modern.

That way you could have both the Franks and Anglo-Saxons and then maybe Medieval France and England.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

The term "Dark Ages" is sometimes still referred to the period between the fall of Rome to the 10th century according to some scholars.

Instead of using the term dark ages they use the Early Middle Ages, so why not use the term Early Medieval Era, since they aren't shy about using both the terms Early Modern and Modern.

That way you could have both the Franks and Anglo-Saxons and then maybe Medieval France and England.

The term 'Dark Ages' is not being used much any more, because it is no longer considered descriptive even of Europe: there was a continuity of local Roman administrative offices in places like Italy, southern France, North Africa and Spain even under non-Roman rulers like the Goths, and in the rest of the world things were not dark in any meaningful way.

Likewise, I'd prefer to avoid any term like 'Middle Ages' because it begs the question: Middle of What?

I think Post Classical has the advantage that if, as many do, you consider the 'classic' Classical Era to be the Greek city states, rise of the Roman Republic and early Empire, and Han China, that period ends about 200 CE, and after that, naturally, is a 'Post Classical' Era with most of its attributes being continuation/improvement/re-interpretation of the Classical Motifs already present:
1. After the Roman Empire began to unravel in the 3rd century CE there were strenuous efforts both before and after the 'last Emperor' to rebuild it, arguably ending with Charlemagne, after which everybody pretty realistically admitted that the Old Empire was not coming back in any recognizable form (and more 'national' based states like France, Engand, Scotland, etc were beginning to appear in fuzzy but recognizable forms)
2. After the Han collapsed, China kept trying to rebuild it until the Tang rose up with a ruling class that was recognizably Semi-Barbarian: cavalry, large noble estates, oppressed peasantry and all the other attributes of a Feudal society not entirely unlike what Europe was building.
3. Based on the mechanical engineering of the Classical (as represented by the theoretical developments in Alexandria's Museum, among other places) the Post Classical saw a distinct development of Power: both the earliest wind mills (in the Middle East) and geared Water Mills show up, and they are being used not just to grind grain, but to power hammers, work metal, and other industrial uses. In China they are working bellows to make cast iron a thousand years before Europe, and a case has been made that the 'First Industrial Revolution" belongs in the period 400 - 900 CE, over 1000 years before the better-known one of the 18th century.
4. The first of the Expansive Monotheisms, Christianity, started in the Classical Era, but it really took off in the Post Classical (late Roman Empire, Byzantium) and was joined then by Islam, while further east Buddhism began its spread across Asia, reaching China in the 5th century and Tibet and Japan in the two centuries following. All of which makes a major break with the 'local' religions of the Classical Era.

The next 'Era', from about 1000 CE and after, is a more complete break from the Past: genuine steel is more readily available everywhere, so weapons are greatly improved, metal tools more available, and the social, Civic, and religious structures all over Europe and the Middle East are very different from anything in the Classical Era. There is also the first massive increase in Human population overall since the advent of agriculture: cultivation of rice with a 2 - 3 times a year harvest starts China and Southeast Asia's population soaring, maize and the potato start the same kind of 'revolution' in the Americas, new crop plowing and rotation techniques and new crops (sorghum in the Middle East, for instance) start similar growth in Europe and western Asia.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I think Post Classical has the advantage that if, as many do, you consider the 'classic' Classical Era to be the Greek city states, rise of the Roman Republic and early Empire, and Han China, that period ends about 200 CE, and after that, naturally, is a 'Post Classical' Era with most of its attributes being continuation/improvement/re-interpretation of the Classical Motifs already present:

The thing is the term Post-Classical refers to the years 500 to 1500 so, name wise, it wouldn't solve the problem of having another age in between, in my opinion.
Early Medieval Era to me sounds better and would still represent the same thing while having your High/Late Medieval Era afterwards.

 

[Krajzen]

The reason I have chose "Migration Age" over post classical, early medieval etc is because Migration Age sounds more sexy.

Besides, it is named after Migration Period which is a real thing, and nicely covers the phenomenon which defines those centuries: enormous (climate caused) migrations and invasions of Germanic peoples, Huns, Turkic peoples, Arabs which impacted every part of Eurasia - completely entire European continent, North Africa, Middle East, Greater Iran, North India, Central Asia, China... Meanwhile Japanese people settled Japan and first civilizations of South East Asia did appear.

So, you could handwave it in universal terms as "Oh this is age when classical order gets turned upside down, an era of chaos but also dynamism and fresh cultural changes. New mechanics appear such as nomadic minor factions, and this is era when global religions unlock their true potential" [because it was in this era when Christianity and Islam began their career, alongside great expansion of old major faiths, and minor new ones such as Manichaeism]

I'd honestly love to use Dark Ages term if this was a game about Europe, because it is just so cool and evocative. I also respect "barbarians", but I think there is some truth in admitting this was not the best era for Europe, if population of Rome fell by 95%, there were no new cities in Christian Europe from 5th to 8th century, and written resources are generalny more sparse. Visigothic, Ostrogothic and Frankish realms were decent enough (at least until Byzantine teconquest attempts devastated Italy), but in Britain almost all cities collapsed after AD 410 and Balkans were catastrophically ravaged by invasions.

 

[BuchiTaton]

I like the idea, but I really doub we will see a change of design of this size and impact (even for expansions).

Considering the importance of the concept of "CULTURES" on the game, we can realice that the number of possible cultures reach their peak at Medieval Era.
- Well know cultures from Ancient Era are mainly from Middle East and a few isolated on the other crandles of civilizations.
- Industrial Era is dominated by a bunch of colonial powers, turning all the pool of options more limited and similar between them, plus the fact that those powers are mainly the same cultures from Early Modern.
- To me Contemporary feel really boring and limited in terms of cultures. I mean there are very few cases of really new cultural identities created on the 20th century.
- Classical and Early Modern have much more options to offer, there are a lot of migration of peoples, expansion of technology, ideas, languages, dynasties, religions, etc. On this eras. There were for sure many cultures being created all along the world.
- Medieval is the crest of the bell curve (who dont love normal distribution?!), there were kingdoms all around the world, with kind of similar or even technologies, and still pretty dinamic melting of cultures.

This is why I hope devs dont force the "must be the same number of culture options each era". I would hate to force boring contemporary cultures and almost unknow ancient cultures to fill those eras when Classical, Medieval and Early Modern have so much to offer.

We know that cultures can not repeat between players, so I guess the limit of players is 10. Even if the number of players is increased a little with expansion, the number of new culture for Ancient, Industrial and Contemporary could be just enough to fill the number of players, while Classical, Medieval and Early Modern could get more cultures to choose.

There are some obvious cultures to add on Ancient Era like Sumerian, Chavin, Minoan, Hurrian, Sabaean, etc. But we all know Classical and Medieval eras surpassed their number of options by far.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

The thing is the term Post-Classical refers to the years 500 to 1500 so, name wise, it wouldn't solve the problem of having another age in between, in my opinion.
Early Medieval Era to me sounds better and would still represent the same thing while having your High/Late Medieval Era afterwards.

Yes and No.
In the list of Historiographical Periods, Post Classical refers to the 'Medieval' period of 5th to 15th centuries CE, and is divided into Early, High, and Late.
In the list of General Periods, Post Classical is 200 - 1500 CE, with a Sub-Period of the Middle Ages which is, again, divided into Early, High and Late Sub-Sub-Periods.

So, you pays yer money and takes yer choice, but for our purposes in the game, I think using the 3rd century as a dividing point as the General Periods model does for a Post Classic Era works better.

The problem with a Migration Period is that it assumes Migrations, which NO Historical 4X has ever been able to model adequately to my knowledge. Humankind might have a sort of 'migration period' in the Neolithic - at least, they are calling it a nomad start - but there is no indication of any such mechanism in later Eras.

I would love to see such a mechanism, but until we get it, Migration Era/Period is, I'm afraid, merely False Advertising.

 

[mitsho]

There's nothing wrong with just going with Early and Late Classical. Or Post-Classical. It is true that Migration Era would be false advertising, unless they manage to simulate it in some form. Might be nice for gameplay- but definitely just something for an expansion. Dark Age is bad since it just isn’t true. It’s an old historiographic way of telling History of the World, the Renaissance as a concept hangs in there as well, as well as Enlightenment. Lots of very evocative terms, but not really a scientific study.

Again, I don’t think the naming will be the problem. Since the reason we want the additional era is to include certain cultures we couldn’t and get a nice and clean line-up of them, we need to answer the follow-up question first: What does that mean for gameplay? Only with that you might have a slight chance of convincing them.

So, I’m looking forward to those gameplay reveals primarily, even if this discussion is very interesting and also educative.

 

[Siptah]

Isn‘t the migration period often referred to as Period of Ethnogenesis in scholarly publications as of lately? I know it’s not as popular in English literature though. It might contradict HKs philosophy to use such a name, but I think that it is a very fitting term for the post-classical, albeit maybe Eurocentric (although it seems to fit at least in the Far East and India as well).

I think I also read the term "times of transformation" a few times to describe this period. But as with migration era, this calls for some gameplay elements that do the term justice.

I think that I've said this before, but I would advocate some game changing "global" events to happen during the game, which you can choose to fight against or accept the change they bring or the damage they'll do: large scale "barbarian" invasions during the end of bronze and classical ages, the plagues and the storm of the hordes in medieval, the revolution in industrial times. Maybe losing a legacy trait and not being able to transcend if you give in to the "barbarians" would be a fitting penalty, while otherwise you'll have to fight a lot. The plague might cost you massive amounts of trade/money in return for less population shrink, and embracing the revolution gives happiness and a possibility that your people deny actions like declaring a war, while denying might lead to losing a city or era stars...

I generally think this is the most "missing" era - in civ as well as in HK. I'm happy HK does not split up the modern era into more, and I hope if they introduce another era at some point it is between classical and medieval. Or add an Enlightenment Era (1650-1750) between Early modern (1450-1650) and Industrial (1750-1918).

 

[BuchiTaton]

For a "Migration Age/Era" from 200 CE to 900 CE we can also count the migration of Nahuas to Mesoamerica and the migration of Tais to SouthEast Asia.

Now, they migrated around the last part of this "Migration Era", but the relevant states from this cultues come until the Medieval Era.

 

[Imaus]

Migration era sounds right, compared to 'Dark Ages' or 'Early Medieval'.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

I've got to confess before we go any further that I really don't like the 'fixed' Eras of either Civ VI or Humankind. I would much rather have something more resembling the Golden-Heroic-Dark 'Ages' of Civ VI, in which events and actions 'trigger' the type of Era you go into - and in addition, the exact time you go into it.
History is full of Great Events/Disasters that could be used to trigger such an Era Change. Humankind is circling the idea with it's 'Fame Stars' in which your actions trigger your Era change, but I haven't seen any evidence (yet) that any of the gamer's actions are in response to in-game events, like Migrations, Plague, Climate Change, etc.

Just in Disease Factors, the shift from traditional Classical to a Post-Classical/Migration/Dark Age Era historically was 'helped along' by a series of massive disease outbreaks that hit Rome, Europe, the Middle East and western Asia:
Antonine Plague in late 2nd century CE
Cyprian Plague in mid-3rd century CE
Plague of Justinian in mid-6th century CE
Each of them killed an estimated 20 - 40% of the population, and the second is now 'credited' with causing such a shortage of manpower in the Roman Empire that it resulted in a great increase in the enlisting of 'barbarians', chiefly Germans, as troops - which ultimately proved disastrous for Rome.

In addition, there are a number of Climactic Events, local in either time or space, that probably (debate goes on!) had disastrous consequences to states, regions, or continents. In fact, the game could start the 'Ancient Era' in 4000 BCE with the end of the African Humid Period, in which a belt from the Atlantic to India across the Sahara, Arabia and Persia-Afghanistan within a century or so changed from savannah grasslands with lakes, rivers and game to the desert or near-desert wastes they have been ever since (FYI, they are postulated to go back to Humid in another 6000 years or so). Among other things, this caused a migration of several groups that were happily farming or hunter-gathering in the Sahara south into West Africa or east into Egypt that may have 'triggered' the settled states that grew up in both places.

Climate change events are now being investigated/debated as potential causes of most of the migrations noted in the posts above - or at least as major contributing factors.

An 'Era Mechanism" in which new Eras were triggered by both gamer/Faction decisions and actions (Humankind's 'Fame Stars') and the gamer/AI reaction to outside-apparently-random-Events would, I think, be much better , and result in a much more dynamic game.
And if an event was a major drying/cooling/rainy event that caused every Minor Faction/Barbarian/City State on half the map to start Migrating in your direction coupled with a climactic agricultural disaster in your own Empire (All Tiles now produce no more than 1 Food each!), you should have the option of naming the new Era "Time of Migrations", "Dark Age", or "Why Me, Lord?"

 

[j51]

And if an event was a major drying/cooling/rainy event that caused every Minor Faction/Barbarian/City State on half the map to start Migrating in your direction coupled with a climactic agricultural disaster in your own Empire (All Tiles now produce no more than 1 Food each!)

That would be cool.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

That would be cool.

Not only cool, but it's essentially what happened to large parts of the world in the 17th century CE. Geoffrey Parker, who is an academic expert on the 16th - 18th centuries in Europe, wrote a massive book called The Global Crisis in which he basically cataloged all the disasters: social, political, environmental, sociological, psychological, that ensued between about 1590 and 1710 CE. Basically, when the climate changes 'slightly' - like, average global temperatures go down by less than 2 degrees Fahrenheit and estimated solar energy reaching the earth declines by a slight percentage - crops fail Everywhere. And when people get very hungry, they take it out on their rulers. During the 17th century, the number of rulers in Europe, Middle East, and Asia that died by assassination or mob violence (or 'legal' execution by their own subjects, as Charles I in England in this century) reached a level never seen before or since in history.

Not only a fascinating book, but a model for the kind of 'Era Change' mechanism I'd like to see in a Historical 4X game. Note that after the 17th century the Industrial Revolution/Industrial Era started, one of the most massively transforming periods in human history since the start of agriculture.

 

[BuchiTaton]

Geography, natural resources, climate, biodiversity, disease, ideologies, technology, economy, social wellfare and relations between the ruling classes are all key elements on the development of history. But the process that could simulate it besides of be extremely complex would be incompatible with any intent of recreate something similar to real history unless we play the "Real World" map with historical localizations for all the cultures.

Could Sumerian culture appear on the tundra?
Could emerge the religion of Israel in a template forest?
Would turn Maori culture an stable and centuries old Roman empire just to expand on the sea, could not Romans develop their own naval technology without change all their identity?
Would Mughal turn American without even have colonies?
Why Aztec should have infantry focus if they start on a steppe region full of horses and camels?
Could not a more free and science oriented China develop Industrial revolution centuries earlier without past by some eras?
Should Khmers get elephants from nowhere wherever they are?
Would Sioux be a stereotypical native culture in a world were they come from a urban empire with millions of population?

All the cultures to be on game have pretty specific reasons why they were like historically did.

So in a game where the Eras should not be "fixed" then why would the Cultures be "fixed"?

I would love to have a game that create a random world with small nomad cultures that interact and grow under complex and realistic mechanism. But I would not expect any of the cultures/civilizations/states to resemble or be named after historical entities.

On the other side a game that simulate those complex process while still keep historical basis could by justified just by being something like Paradox games, where the map and distribution is based on the real thing.

So, I think we are many years away to have a game where we could feel the immersion of an ethnic Papuan tribe that migrate to a huge grassland were they become horse lords, that unified under a warlord who guide them to conquer the ethnic Khoisan kingdoms on the taiga, then your people convert to the religion of those seafearing ethnic Tupi traders, to some centuries later by invaded by barbarians that impose their Sumerian dynasty. Later your nation turn to be a colonial power colonizing the jungles full of small Chinese chiefdoms and when the industrialization expand around the world you are fighting with planes and submarines againts your rival the Celestial Empire of Inuit.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

@BuchiTaton: a very good summary of the problems of "Free Form" Civs/Factions!

'Way back in Civ V days I tried to come up with a way of getting a Free Form start to the game. Basically, you would choose your Civilization After seeing your starting position, and the choices you were given were based on that position. A Tundra Start would not get you the option (normally) of starting as the Aztecs or Mali.
Taking that a step further, I tried 'defining' each Civ by certain necessary attributes. Simplifying Hugely, I decided to define every group by three factors:
Source of Water: Lake, River, Oasis, Coastal
(Primary) Source of Food: Game (Deer, Cattle), Gatherable Grains, Gatherable Fruits and Nuts (Forest/Rainforest), Riverine Fishing, Coastal Fishing/Shellfishing
Building Materials: Clay (brick, adobe), Stone, Wood.

Without any other variations, that gave me 60 possible combinations, enough for most 4X Historical games.

There are two Stumbling Bocks to this approach.
1. Many Civilizations have similar starting attributes by these criteria: a huge percentage, for instance, started in river valleys, so many that it gets very hard to adequately distinguish among them.
2. No general plan like this accounts for the mass of very particular characteristics of individual Cultures/Civilizations. Too many of the 'Unique' attributes are the result of very complex interactions between climate/terrain conditions, resources, religion, prior choices, outside cultural influences, and sheer Bloody Coincidence. You could, theoretically, set up a game in which to become Industrial England all the influences could be modeled, but then gamers would be playing convoluted games to 'acquire' all the influences for the Civ they want to play, which to my mind turns the game development on its head.

But, there are still some nuggets of potential in the idea, and I think they are uniquely applicable to the Humankind framework.
It appears that in Humankind you don't actually choose your first Faction (Ancient Era) until after X turns in the Neolithic: that corresponds to my original concept of not choosing a Civ to play until after you see your initial Start Position - in Humankind you get to explore and find a Start Position instead of getting 'stuck' with one.
The big difference is that, apparently, there are no restrictions on your choice of Faction, except for the fact that you only have 10 Factions to choose from, minus any that have already been chosen.
What if, instead, there were a wider range of factions to potentially choose from, but your choices were restricted by the terrain and conditions of the place your Faction started? IF you want to play as Harappans or Egyptians, find a river valley with marshes and grains or you may not get the choice to play as either.

In the following Eras, influences from previous Factions would/should have an influence, but you should also always have a choice. Some are pretty obvious: Rome influenced French, German, English, Romanian, Byzantine possibilities for the Era following Classical, Any Chinese Faction influences all or most subsequent Chinese Dynasties/Factions and increasingly, surrounding Factions like Korean, Japanese and Southeast Asian.
Some would take some creativity: Gaul was obliterated as a Faction/Culture before the end of any Classical Era, so what happens to your Post-Gaul Choice? The answer, I think, would be to use the Gallic attributes like good metal-working, accurate road surveys, wheeled vehicle technology (better than Rome's when they met!), 'nature' oriented Relgion and adaptive agriculture (they were using a form of heavy plow in northern Gaul centuries before the wheeled plow revolutionized Medieval agriculture). That could give the Post-Gallic Faction a choice among the Franks (pretty obviously!), Germans or English (think Welsh or Cornish or Briton influence on the Anglo-Saxon and later kingdoms)
Something similar could even be used to 'extend' choices across cultural divides: Babylonian astronomy/astrology could be an influence allowing the choice of Mayans in Classical Era, for instance.

Just thoughts so far: I doubt that any sweeping additions to the Factions or change to the flexibility of choices is possible at this stage of development of Humankind.

 

[mitsho]

Well, no. But this is the future. The next step in a logical development. Or back to the beginning again. We started with civs being completely the same, only their names and colours differentiating them and you as the leader (civ2). Then there came traits for the civs and Unique units (civ3). The went further with giving several leader traits, thus allowing for more variation AND repetition (civ4). The next escalation is completely unique abilities, as well as added buildings and biases (civ5) as well as leader agendas. The next step would be to have completely unique civs but fewer unique units/buildings (Age of Empires). Same tree, but different unlocks. That allows also the "War Elephant" to not be unique to one culture...

The next step in that design is to not make the English spawn close to an ocean, but make the civ that is close to the ocean become the English. But the danger here lies in too much dependency: not only on the map, but also other factors such as social movements (like Religions). It needs to be a game and that means player control. If I want to play as the Romans but the map in game 1favoured the Mayans, someone else took them in game 2, game 3 I needed the Goths to defend and in Game 4, it would be better to go with Persia, but hey, I want to play as Rome? Now imagine that the Romans required the Etruscans or the Myceneans or for you to conquer a certain number of close by city states as well. You'd never get to play them. That's just not fun.

So it needs a balance between "a logical tree" and/or "context factors" as well as a freedom of choice. It is fun to go Olmecs-Rome-Khmer after all. But I am very much looking forward to that game. It is a total departure from Civilization, but I am very much looking forward to that. The main difference: a dynamic understanding of history AND a reactive understanding of gameplay. The latter is very important, maybe comparable to Crusader Kings, in that it targets a different type of player than the boardgamey civilization does.