Adding a prehistorical era?

[dagriggstar]

Similar line of thinking. I don't like food essentially being science early though. Agriculture could just be a 100% eureka (in my framework below, say "get 10 food from one "gather"). You should have a game stage where there are settled and unsettled civs running around.


Anyway my 2 cents.
Begin the game with a civilian unit and a camp unit. Your civilian unit has two moves, can perform two tasks - "gather" and "collect" and consumes 2 food per turn. Your camp unit is where your new units will spawn, it also has 2 moves.
1a) Gather will give you a lump sum of food from the tile the civilian is on and all surrounding tiles (So if these are all grasslands - 7x2 = 14 food). If a tile has been used in a gather, it cannot be reused for x turns (say 5, but this would depend on balance).
1b) Collect will give you an amount of timber, used to create improvements and buildings. The same rule applies, if a tile has been used in a collect, it cannot be reused for x turns (for this example, 5).
1c) If a camp unit is on, or adjacent to a gather or collect, no food or timber is lost. For every extra tile away 2 food or 1 timber is lost. For example, if the camp unit is 5 tiles from the "collect area" and you are collecting 7 grassland tiles, you gain (7x2) - (5x2) = 4 food.

2) If your civilization gains 10 food, you can get a new unit (Civilian, military unit that does not require a resource, camp). You can elect to save the food, if you want to wait to get a strategic resource. Military units also consume 2 food per turn. The next new unit will require 20 food (going up 10 food each time).

3) There is no science in the first era. Each eureka will give you a new tech. In the second era, eurekas will give you 90% of a new technology, decreasing by 10% each era. All players gain science from trade routes with more advanced civilizations, but for nomadic players this will probably be their main source.

4) Buildings and improvements are built by civilian units, with timber (or stone/marble). Upon completion, the civilian unit "works" the building or improvement they have created. For example, a civilian unit builds a farm on grasslands, you gain 3 (tile yield) - 2 (civilian food per turn) = 1 food per turn.
4a) This only a camp unit is within 3 tiles or there is a granary building within 2 tiles of the farm. Otherwise you do not gain or lose food per turn (civilian feeds themselves only).
4b) Civilian units can create buildings on the map essentially the same way improvements are made.

5) Trade units either use the camp or later, the market (A building) as their destination/origin points.

6) Each camp unit has the ability to "settle" and create a city. On city creation
6a) Any civilian unit with 3 tiles of the city has the option of joining the city
6b) Any city center building (Granary, monument for example) within 2 tiles of the city, is available pre built in the city
6c) If city will be built with 3 or less population after adding civilians, you may chose one tile with a building on it to become a pre built district for that city (For example, building a barracks or stable allows this tile to become an encampment on city creation). 4 or more population allows two such districts.
6d) After this point, you play a relatively normal game of civ

I think the food mechanics would encourage you to be a nomad very early (faster first 2-5 units) but settle down around Classical era (Better science generation, easier to grow cities when food is pooled at a city level instead of a civ level). Some civ abilities could favor playing as a nomad much longer into the game or settling right away, for variety.

 

[Patine]

Similar line of thinking. I don't like food essentially being science early though. Agriculture could just be a 100% eureka (in my framework below, say "get 10 food from one "gather"). You should have a game stage where there are settled and unsettled civs running around.


Anyway my 2 cents.
Begin the game with a civilian unit and a camp unit. Your civilian unit has two moves, can perform two tasks - "gather" and "collect" and consumes 2 food per turn. Your camp unit is where your new units will spawn, it also has 2 moves.
1a) Gather will give you a lump sum of food from the tile the civilian is on and all surrounding tiles (So if these are all grasslands - 7x2 = 14 food). If a tile has been used in a gather, it cannot be reused for x turns (say 5, but this would depend on balance).
1b) Collect will give you an amount of timber, used to create improvements and buildings. The same rule applies, if a tile has been used in a collect, it cannot be reused for x turns (for this example, 5).
1c) If a camp unit is on, or adjacent to a gather or collect, no food or timber is lost. For every extra tile away 2 food or 1 timber is lost. For example, if the camp unit is 5 tiles from the "collect area" and you are collecting 7 grassland tiles, you gain (7x2) - (5x2) = 4 food.

2) If your civilization gains 10 food, you can get a new unit (Civilian, military unit that does not require a resource, camp). You can elect to save the food, if you want to wait to get a strategic resource. Military units also consume 2 food per turn. The next new unit will require 20 food (going up 10 food each time).

3) There is no science in the first era. Each eureka will give you a new tech. In the second era, eurekas will give you 90% of a new technology, decreasing by 10% each era. All players gain science from trade routes with more advanced civilizations, but for nomadic players this will probably be their main source.

4) Buildings and improvements are built by civilian units, with timber (or stone/marble). Upon completion, the civilian unit "works" the building or improvement they have created. For example, a civilian unit builds a farm on grasslands, you gain 3 (tile yield) - 2 (civilian food per turn) = 1 food per turn.
4a) This only a camp unit is within 3 tiles or there is a granary building within 2 tiles of the farm. Otherwise you do not gain or lose food per turn (civilian feeds themselves only).
4b) Civilian units can create buildings on the map essentially the same way improvements are made.

5) Trade units either use the camp or later, the market (A building) as their destination/origin points.

6) Each camp unit has the ability to "settle" and create a city. On city creation
6a) Any civilian unit with 3 tiles of the city has the option of joining the city
6b) Any city center building (Granary, monument for example) within 2 tiles of the city, is available pre built in the city
6c) If city will be built with 3 or less population after adding civilians, you may chose one tile with a building on it to become a pre built district for that city (For example, building a barracks or stable allows this tile to become an encampment on city creation). 4 or more population allows two such districts.
6d) After this point, you play a relatively normal game of civ

I think the food mechanics would encourage you to be a nomad very early (faster first 2-5 units) but settle down around Classical era (Better science generation, easier to grow cities when food is pooled at a city level instead of a civ level). Some civ abilities could favor playing as a nomad much longer into the game or settling right away, for variety.

This sounds like a completely unnecessary and gratuitous early-game age of tedium which offers no benefit to gameplay that would make me quit the game utterly and completely for other strategy games I also enjoy...

 

[PhoenicianGold]

This sounds like a completely unnecessary and gratuitous early-game age of tedium which offers no benefit to gameplay that would make me quit the game utterly and completely for other strategy games I also enjoy...

I see the addition of a prehistoric era mostly to extend the nomadic feeling of early game for players who like that feel and think it is over too soon.

In that respect, I don't see it having much mechanical potential for a large expansion, nor do I think it should get too bogged down in new mechanics.

What I would do:

No science or culture. Both of those tech trees make sense as starting with the settlement of a city. Also removing them cuts down game complexity by half and allows the player to enjoy the simpler mechanics. No substitute systems, just leave them out.

Keep gold and faith as basic currencies to buy new basic units with. The real benefit of this is to give the player a longer period to enjoy warriors, slingers, and scouts. Builders are relevant for the entire game and settlers are relevant for most of the game. But the early military units you start with are obsolete almost as soon as you start, and I think a prehistoric period would not only make sense as having no military advancement, but would allow those early units to just be a basic given around which to build other gimmicks.

The real draw of prehistoric period would be prehistoric fauna and flora. So add those to the map. Make them collectible resources, meaning the player only has the option to harvest. This allows players to feel like hunter gatherers, and additionally ensures that most prehistoric resources would be gone from the map before a reasonable date.

Add two new units. The first is a player unit called the gatherer. It can harvest fauna resources. It can upgrade into the builder after establishing a city.

The second unit is an enemy unit called game. The game unit represents multiple kinds of fauna which are migratory. Military units can defeat game like they would a barbarian, and defeated game produces fauna resources.

Now the only thing that is left is to determine what exactly flora and fauna do. My suggestion is that they just contribute to a simple food meter that you need to fill up before you have the "excess" needed to support settling down in a city. It could be a bit more complicated but not go too deep.

You could even clean this idea up further by having all flora and fauna which is not claimed past a certain date settling into whatever tile it is currently on and "evolving" into a static resource. So wherever unclaimed mammoths are, they turn into an elephant tile, etc. This might be too complicated finding prehistoric equivalents of everything, and even still the map would necessarily need to popopulate new resources in a way similar to revealing ore deposits in later game.

Finally, as a small aside I would keep total fog of war during this period. You have no written history at this point, you will have no recollection of your migrations during this period. What this adds mechanically is that players can still roam and explore and plan for settlement locations, but unlike in ancient era they have to rely on memory to benefit from exploration.

And that I think is all a prehistoric era needs to feel different, to last a reasonable amount of time before getting boring, and to still feel like it fits VI.

I also think there is room for a general addition where barbarian camps and goody huts coocupy the same role, and are either friendly or hostile based on whether you attack them with military units or send scouts as envoys. And since they would be the same they could be given tribal personalities like the city states. But that's a general mod that I think would dovetail nicely with a prehistoric expansion, even though it would apply equally to all eras.

 

[Patine]

I see the addition of a prehistoric era mostly to extend the nomadic feeling of early game for players who like that feel and think it is over too soon.

In that respect, I don't see it having much mechanical potential for a large expansion, nor do I think it should get too bogged down in new mechanics.

What I would do:

No science or culture. Both of those tech trees make sense as starting with the settlement of a city. Also removing them cuts down game complexity by half and allows the player to enjoy the simpler mechanics. No substitute systems, just leave them out.

Keep gold and faith as basic currencies to buy new basic units with. The real benefit of this is to give the player a longer period to enjoy warriors, slingers, and scouts. Builders are relevant for the entire game and settlers are relevant for most of the game. But the early military units you start with are obsolete almost as soon as you start, and I think a prehistoric period would not only make sense as having no military advancement, but would allow those early units to just be a basic given around which to build other gimmicks.

The real draw of prehistoric period would be prehistoric fauna and flora. So add those to the map. Make them collectible resources, meaning the player only has the option to harvest. This allows players to feel like hunter gatherers, and additionally ensures that most prehistoric resources would be gone from the map before a reasonable date.

Add two new units. The first is a player unit called the gatherer. It can harvest fauna resources. It can upgrade into the builder after establishing a city.

The second unit is an enemy unit called game. The game unit represents multiple kinds of fauna which are migratory. Military units can defeat game like they would a barbarian, and defeated game produces fauna resources.

Now the only thing that is left is to determine what exactly flora and fauna do. My suggestion is that they just contribute to a simple food meter that you need to fill up before you have the "excess" needed to support settling down in a city. It could be a bit more complicated but not go too deep.

You could even clean this idea up further by having all flora and fauna which is not claimed past a certain date settling into whatever tile it is currently on and "evolving" into a static resource. So wherever unclaimed mammoths are, they turn into an elephant tile, etc. This might be too complicated finding prehistoric equivalents of everything, and even still the map would necessarily need to popopulate new resources in a way similar to revealing ore deposits in later game.

Finally, as a small aside I would keep total fog of war during this period. You have no written history at this point, you will have no recollection of your migrations during this period. What this adds mechanically is that players can still roam and explore and plan for settlement locations, but unlike in ancient era they have to rely on memory to benefit from exploration.

And that I think is all a prehistoric era needs to feel different, to last a reasonable amount of time before getting boring, and to still feel like it fits VI.

I also think there is room for a general addition where barbarian camps and goody huts coocupy the same role, and are either friendly or hostile based on whether you attack them with military units or send scouts as envoys. And since they would be the same they could be given tribal personalities like the city states. But that's a general mod that I think would dovetail nicely with a prehistoric expansion, even though it would apply equally to all eras.

I am very much hoping this idea catches no attention, steam, or traction from actual Firaxis developers, because every post advocating makes it sound more and more like it would a major annoying onus at the start of the game, for no gain or benefit to gameplay.

 

[PhoenicianGold]

I am very much hoping this idea catches no attention, steam, or traction from actual Firaxis developers, because every post advocating makes it sound more and more like it would a major annoying onus at the start of the game, for no gain or benefit to gameplay.

Expansions are optional, you can turn them off.

Really what matters is whether the devs recognize the rather limited interest in this idea, and whether they think they can develop it with a proportionally limited amount of resources. Most of the mechanics I proposed would take virtually no additional work to implement, so the cost-benefit ratio if they kept it very simple and basic would be rather low. New enemy unit, random roaming, a dozen or so different animal models. New civilian unit. Making settler unit conditional on filling "food meter." And some new map resources. All so simple a modder could do it, and yet if Firaxis devoted the paltry development resources to achieving this, that would be incremental income at 5 dollars a pop. 15 if they threw in a couple of extra civs.

I certainly don't want them to do anything huge with the idea because that would bore the hell out of me. That I agree would be a total waste. But seeing as it is early game I don't see it as a concept that would need much development and would cost practically nothing on Firaxis' part.

 

[Siptah]

While not pre-historic by any means, I'd have two recommendations for players that want to have a more population managing or nomadic experience:

• play At The Gates (early game is great, late game sucks very much)
• play any of the Clarus Victoria Games (the two Egyptian ones are clearly the best and are probably among the best researched games out there)

If you afterwards still think it would be better as a prequel era to a every normal civ game instead of a standalone game/spin-off, you are of course entitled to your opinion, but I disagree

 

[Gedemo]

in previous iterations of Civ, some guys modded a prehistoric era. The fact is that the whole map was revealed in ancient era, that was quite un imersive.
An idea could be to let the fog of war permanent on the map (not around the units) until the discovery of Writting, for example.

 

[PhoenicianGold]

While not pre-historic by any means, I'd have two recommendations for players that want to have a more population managing or nomadic experience:

• play At The Gates (early game is great, late game sucks very much)
• play any of the Clarus Victoria Games (the two Egyptian ones are clearly the best and are probably among the best researched games out there)

If you afterwards still think it would be better as a prequel era to a every normal civ game instead of a standalone game/spin-off, you are of course entitled to your opinion, but I disagree

I think there is a balance that could be hit that would feel like a nomadic hunt-and-gather collect-a-thon race and tickle the tastebuds of players without lasting too long. Short and sweet, fifteen minute era, half hour max, throw it in as an option. If players don't like it they can turn eras off (I think this should be a future era option too). And if players do like it and want more they now have a base structure that they can build mods from.

I agree with you that At the Gates is a strong case for why no civ game should have a large nomadic expansion. The primary appeal of Civ is claiming and changing the land, which nomadism only delays.

However I also see At the Gates as a strong case against European tribes in Civ VI as well. Aside from the Goths, none of the ethnic groups represented in At the Gates ever had a formal polity, and I kind of resent the Celts and the Huns as setting a precedent for everyone wanting the Gauls in VI as a separate civ. We don't need the Franks or the Germans or the Slavs or the Danes as separate civs, not when we can have Charlemagne of France, Arminius of Germany, Olga of Russia, or Cnut of Denmark. That period of Europe, as evidenced by At the Gates, is better represented by a completely different game than Civilization.

 

[Siptah]

That period of Europe, as evidenced by At the Gates, is better represented by a completely different game than Civilization.

I could see adding an era between classical and medieval though. Besides Enlightenment, it seems the best spot to squeeze in an era.

 

[PhoenicianGold]

I could see adding an era between classical and medieval though. Besides Enlightenment, it seems the best spot to squeeze in an era.

I would appreciate an enlightenment era and I think that would mesh very well with an economic expansion, Portugal, and the likely appearance of Italy. It would also thematically/historcially support Swahili to some degree.

I guess a dark era could accompany this even though it would be trodding on the golden age mechanic a bit. It would also support an Italy civ. Could be the only way Bulgaria stands a chance of having a mechanical identity separate from Hungary.

I would support this, given that the enlightenment era represents a substantial gap in the timeline, but on its own I don't quite see it filling up much design space other than a dozen or two new techs (COME ON GLASS). It could be balanced out by your proposed era, although the real problem with an early middle ages era is finding an angle that is fun and positive for such a stagnant period of history. Maybe a religion expansion? Could include Tibet or Burma (or (*spit*) Byzantium for the boring people).

At any rate i don't see this having much effect on a prehistoric era. It's such a small idea by comparison that the devs will either do it or they won't, regardless of where their resources are focused.