.

[Siptah]

maybe the great cultural attraction of works that claim that new space to live in needs to be found for your people (who shall not be named) convinced (in civ scale) 1 person to draw lines on the map. Similar to how you‘d expect borders with displacing stones in some settler games.

 

[Arent11]

But that's not what's going to be introduced in Civ6. Besides, migration might be all well and good, but cities growing and borders expanding has to happen some other way too otherwise they'd be a constant population the whole game.

But the borders in the outdated civ 7 grow with culture too, if I remember correctly? (Honestly, I don't know, do they still grow with culture?) And don't get me started on the "buy tiles with gold" mechanic.

If a city is attacked and besieged, people should flee from it to surrounding cities. If a city is starving or works very well, similar effects could occur. A city with high appeal tiles might attract migration, a city with a civ in a dark age might lose population.

The migration could have good and bad effects - attracting talented citizens might boost science and production and cause brain drain in the original civ, conflicts between religions, ideologies and ethnicities might cause rebellions etc.

 

[Siptah]

But the borders in the outdated civ 7 grow with culture too, if I remember correctly? (Honestly, I don't know, do they still grow with culture?) And don't get me started on the "buy tiles with gold" mechanic.

If a city is attacked and besieged, people should flee from it to surrounding cities. If a city is starving or works very well, similar effects could occur. A city with high appeal tiles might attract migration, a city with a civ in a dark age might lose population.

The migration could have good and bad effects - attracting talented citizens might boost science and production and cause brain drain in the original civ, conflicts between religions, ideologies and ethnicities might cause rebellions etc.

No. Borders grow with population in VII. Or at least they did until the 2nd expansion (Swords & Quills) that tied them to influence.

On a serious note: I‘d love to have migration (between civs and between towns and cities within a civ) with some of the expansions for civ VII. It‘s one of the big things that has always been missing in my eyes. And then, if they would tie each pop to a culture and not decide on culture on city level… I could see culture switching cities again: if the majority of a city is of different culture than the owner, and the owner fails to act.

 

[Arent11]

No. Borders grow with population in VII. Or at least they did until the 2nd expansion (Swords & Quills) that tied them to influence.

Oh, so influence is produced by certain buildings? Maybe like monuments, town halls etc.? They basically split culture into influence and culture?

Well, having monuments/town halls spreading borders by "influence" might make a bit more sense than monuments spreading border by "culture". Of course it's weird to say a painting spreads a border, in the case of a town hall one might assume "influence" means local organisation.

On a serious note: I‘d love to have migration (between civs and between towns and cities within a civ) with some of the expansions for civ VII. It‘s one of the big things that has always been missing in my eyes. And then, if they would tie each pop to a culture and not decide on culture on city level… I could see culture switching cities again: if the majority of a city is of different culture than the owner, and the owner fails to act.

Exactly. You are not switching civilizations Egypt -> Mongols, but your own Egyptian population might slowly be *influenced* to become "Mongolian" by adopting their culture. Because the Mongols build Bach's Cathedral and that's so awesome. And of course it could be counteracted by armies, but they might become disloyal.

 

[Siptah]

Oh, so influence is produced by certain buildings? Maybe like monuments, town halls etc.? They basically split culture into influence and culture?

Well, having monuments/town halls spreading borders by "influence" might make a bit more sense than monuments spreading border by "culture". Of course it's weird to say a painting spreads a border, in the case of a town hall one might assume "influence" means local organisation.



Exactly. You are not switching civilizations Egypt -> Mongols, but your own Egyptian population might slowly be *influenced* to become "Mongolian" by adopting their culture. Because the Mongols build Bach's Cathedral and that's so awesome. And of course it could be counteracted by armies, but they might become disloyal.

Sorry, too much satire there. To be clear: so far, it’s all population in civ VII. Influence is a purely diplomatically currency as it seems. I just thought it makes sense to change this in future years.

 

[chaosprophet]

On a serious note: I‘d love to have migration (between civs and between towns and cities within a civ) with some of the expansions for civ VII. It‘s one of the big things that has always been missing in my eyes. And then, if they would tie each pop to a culture and not decide on culture on city level… I could see culture switching cities again: if the majority of a city is of different culture than the owner, and the owner fails to act.

It could also be tied to things like war weariness. A civ that is warring too much will have some pops running away, migrating to civs that war less / are more peaceful.

 

[Arent11]

Stellaris has something like that which is very fleshed out and... I hate it. It's too much small detail that you end up wanting to micromanage, but have only very indirect influence over. Which means that you either ignore it and have population moving around seemingly randomly, or you get incredibly frustrated trying to harness it (last time I play ~5 years ago anyway). Population in Civ has always been very abstract and that's its greatest strength. Do they live in the city? In the tile / district they work? Who cares? The last thing I want is for each individual pop to have a culture, a religion, a social class, happiness, etc... Much better to abstract all of that away up to the city level (even empire level if possible). Not that a pop-centric game is a bad idea, but it needs to be designed ground up that way, rather than as an obtuse sub-layer to cities.

The only kind of migration that would fit IMO, would be whole pops moving between cities or between towns and cities. Which Civ7 does sort of model by having Towns speed up the growth of nearby cities (which is very historically accurate: pre modern cities were almost always population sinks that relied on migrants from nearby areas to keep their population steady or rising.

But then culture is just making people happy, just like civ 1 luxury/entertainment. Which is fine, I guess.

If you don't want to model the influence of culture on the population apart from making it happy, it's not necessary as a separate yield. "Happiness" would suffice.

 

[chaosprophet]

Stellaris has something like that which is very fleshed out and... I hate it. It's too much small detail that you end up wanting to micromanage, but have only very indirect influence over. Which means that you either ignore it and have population moving around seemingly randomly, or you get incredibly frustrated trying to harness it (last time I play ~5 years ago anyway). Population in Civ has always been very abstract and that's its greatest strength. Do they live in the city? In the tile / district they work? Who cares? The last thing I want is for each individual pop to have a culture, a religion, a social class, happiness, etc... Much better to abstract all of that away up to the city level (even empire level if possible). Not that a pop-centric game is a bad idea, but it needs to be designed ground up that way, rather than as an obtuse sub-layer to cities.

The only kind of migration that would fit IMO, would be whole pops moving between cities or between towns and cities. Which Civ7 does sort of model by having Towns speed up the growth of nearby cities (which is very historically accurate: pre modern cities were almost always population sinks that relied on migrants from nearby areas to keep their population steady or rising.

I wouldn't want a stellaris like system of each pop having individual characteristics, but it could be things like, low happiness means there is a chance that when the city grows, it doesn't grow and resets the grown time to zero, and a pop is instead gained to a near city or town based on distance and culture, be it a friendly or not. Alternative the war weariness resulting in refuges etc. Could be interesting, but also wouldn't bet strongly in it being a good idea.

 

[Arent11]

Sorry, too much satire there. To be clear: so far, it’s all population in civ VII. Influence is a purely diplomatically currency as it seems. I just thought it makes sense to change this in future years.

Guys, I can't read up/watch every developers video, some people have to work So please don't mislead me!

Tying border growth to pop is ok.

But again: The only thing that's left for culture is basically making people happy. Having paintings & songs in theatres & museums "develop" ideas like organized military and merchant guilds is... just as true as paintings spreading borders.

 

[Krikkit1]

Guys, I can't read up/watch every developers video, some people have to work So please don't mislead me!

Tying border growth to pop is ok.

But again: The only thing that's left for culture is basically making people happy. Having paintings & songs in theatres & museums "develop" ideas like organized military and merchant guilds is... just as true as paintings spreading borders.

For an IRL justification, Paintings, Songs, (and Stories, Books) are a way for people to express thoughts/feelings. they are "the people talking to each other" about the way things are/should be.

Seems quite reasonable for that to end up giving you Code of Laws, Divine right, or Capitalism (if you have the right other civics/situations that encourage those beliefs)

the "soft" outputs (social outputs that are not science or gold) have been split into (effects are what it seems)
Happiness (keeping your people happy-> less revolts, more celebrations that make your government more capable/complex)
Culture (gives you civics)
Influence (lets you apply effort on other civs.. big and small)

 

[Arent11]

For an IRL justification, Paintings, Songs, (and Stories, Books) are a way for people to express thoughts/feelings. they are "the people talking to each other" about the way things are/should be.

Seems quite reasonable for that to end up giving you Code of Laws, Divine right, or Capitalism (if you have the right other civics/situations that encourage those beliefs)

the "soft" outputs (social outputs that are not science or gold) have been split into (effects are what it seems)
Happiness (keeping your people happy-> less revolts, more celebrations that make your government more capable/complex)
Culture (gives you civics)
Influence (lets you apply effort on other civs.. big and small)

But the people were just angrily arguing that paintings don't expand borders and now paintings should create organized military & capitalism?

You are right that art *spreads* ideas. It might *convince* people that code of laws might be a great idea But organized military or capitalism wasn't invented by an artist.

 

[kaspergm]

4-I'm not gay but this Gilgabro got me thinking

Forget about Gilgabro, gimme some Ambiorix

Anyway, back on topic, mine would probably be:

- It's been how many years, and they still haven't gotten rid of policy cards and agendas?

 

[Krikkit1]

But the people were just angrily arguing that paintings don't expand borders and now paintings should create organized military & capitalism?

You are right that art *spreads* ideas. It might *convince* people that code of laws might be a great idea But organized military or capitalism wasn't invented by an artist.

Inventing ideas is pointless without spreading them...
Spreading ideas
1. lets other people get the ideas and add on their own parts
2. lets the ideas actually change what people do

Inventing Nuclear Fusion Power or Currency without spreading ideas is
1. Probably Impossible (multiple people need to be involved, often across wide areas of space and time)
2. Functionally Pointless (if I had a working fusion power plant in my back yard and I buried it when I died, or I only gave the secrets to my oldest son who only gave the secrests to his son.... the as far as everyone else knows there is no fusion power plant)

A lot of "civics" is not just thinking about how things could work.... there are millions of ideas about how to get our society closer to a utopia (at least a utopia for certain people) and some of them may even be very good. but those ideas won't have any effect until they are spread.

Maybe think of Tech/Civic=available... someone invented it, and the process of "researching" the tech is actually "Development"... just like the process of "researching" the civic is actually "Promotion" (until the people who are able to implement it want to.)

 

[Arent11]

Inventing ideas is pointless without spreading them...
Spreading ideas
1. lets other people get the ideas and add on their own parts
2. lets the ideas actually change what people do

Inventing Nuclear Fusion Power or Currency without spreading ideas is
1. Probably Impossible (multiple people need to be involved, often across wide areas of space and time)
2. Functionally Pointless (if I had a working fusion power plant in my back yard and I buried it when I died, or I only gave the secrets to my oldest son who only gave the secrests to his son.... the as far as everyone else knows there is no fusion power plant)

A lot of "civics" is not just thinking about how things could work.... there are millions of ideas about how to get our society closer to a utopia (at least a utopia for certain people) and some of them may even be very good. but those ideas won't have any effect until they are spread.

Maybe think of Tech/Civic=available... someone invented it, and the process of "researching" the tech is actually "Development"... just like the process of "researching" the civic is actually "Promotion" (until the people who are able to implement it want to.)

That's only true for ideologies/religions. The idea of nuclear fusion is spread by applying for a grant & writing papers, not by writing a theatre play or singing a song to your professor

I'm all for culture having a part in *applying* ideological ideas or maybe implementing governments. But first, someone has to come up with "republic", "feudalism" or "liberalism".

 

[Arent11]

I have to say, I've sort of lost track of who was being satirical and in personna where and when at this point But then again, I've always though satire and sarcasm are best when you're not sure if its genuine or not...

You started a thread about pretending that civ 7 was old & civ 6 the next in line. Which is kinda interesting, but also confusing.

 

[Krikkit1]

That's only true for ideologies/religions. The idea of nuclear fusion is spread by applying for a grant & writing papers, not by writing a theatre play or singing a song to your professor

I'm all for culture having a part in *applying* ideological ideas or maybe implementing governments. But first, someone has to come up with "republic", "feudalism" or "liberalism".

Getting a grant and writing papers is how you spread (your tiny part of) the idea of nuclear fusion [you have your idea already, you just want to show that it is right and popularize it... to get more grants]

Making speeches and art is how you spread (your tiny part of) the idea of feudalism or republic or liberalism.

The problem with civ is these are massively simplified.... steam engines are thousands of years old, but there was a lot to add onto them before they became good for railroads or the industrial revolution.

The idea of liberalism / feudalism is probably as old as "having rules" or "the power of friendship"... but these ideas had to have different details and thoughts added to them before they became popular. So people had to share ideas,

The only reason we don't discover social techs with getting a grant and writing papers is it would be Horrendously unethical.
So instead we either do thought experiments (fictional stories)
or we force a natural experiment (encourage people that X is good and we should do it through expression of various underlying ideas)

And just like number of papers/grants =/= amount of actual progress in science, Number of paintings/songs=/=actual progress in society... but those are the means to get there.

 

[Gori the Grey]

OP is brilliant. Bravo!

Here's my addition to the fun, which is admittedly kind of meta- rather than substantive: I mean, the backwardness is right there in the title! They didn't even move on to Civiliz8ion. How the hell are we supposed to understand this reverse numeration?

But then again, I've always though satire and sarcasm are best when you're not sure if its genuine or not...

I've got a Law I want to introduce you to.

 

[Arent11]

IMO, both @Arent11 and @Krikkit1 are entirely correct here, but they're looking at different sides of the same coin.

The "issue" is that what Culture is used for in Civilization is related to socio-political ideas, but the way it's generated is via art (mostly). The word "culture" in everyday speech does cover both of these facets, but they are still very different things. While they do sometimes overlap (such as in propaganda), not many people would call a treatise like On The Wealth of Nations a work of art, just like few people would claim that Bach's music inspired social change across Europe. But in Civilization these two very different meanings of culture are fused together and that's where the weirdness happens: like Picasso making a city change which empire it belongs to, or building an Opera in order to get professional armies sooner.

Of course this is just one example of what Civ does everywhere; it takes inspiration from a broad historical phenomenon, abstracts it away into a gameplay element, and digs through history to find names for techs / civics / units / buildings / whatever. Of course things look absurd and ahistorical when you look too closely at this abstraction, especially because the flavour and the mechanics are inspired by different aspects of the same underlying historical thing. There might be a lesson here we could apply to some of the more contentious aspects of CIv7...

Yes, the problem is what you mean by culture.

Do you mean theatres & museums? Then they won't discover you capitalism.

Do you mean *social sciences*? Then they don't have much to do with theatres.

 

[Siptah]

Yes, the problem is what you mean by culture.

Do you mean theatres & museums? Then they won't discover you capitalism.

Do you mean *social sciences*? Then they don't have much to do with theatres.

Culture is the world humans create to cope with the knowledge of their own mortality, obviously. So, yeah, it's the cause of science and research And of capitalism, and of theatre plays and theatre buildings. It's not some superfluous nice-to-have thing. It's down at the very core of being human, along with the need for food. Civ got yield prioritization all wrong... who cares about science or production without culture? It's all meaningless. Good thing that civ VII's 9th expansion, "The Nitty Gritty of Society", finally set this right.

 

[Gori the Grey]

There is a Marxist critic named Raymond Williams who published a famous book called Keywords, giving extended definitions/explorations of a score or two of important terms used in the analysis of culture. About the word "culture" itself, he claims that it is one of the most complex and unsettled of all. His entry on it is well worth a look. Arguments here and elsewhere about the meaning of the term could often be clarified by consulting it.