I think the player should start as one of these settlements even. That's why I would like the game to start before 4000.
Two problems I see with this. First, right now you start with a mobile Settler, so starting as a fixed Settlement would actually reduce your early flexibility. Second, while it makes an interesting Option, extended the standard game's 6000 Years And Change timespan - AND keeping all 6000+ years of turns full of interesting decisions and actions - is a Tall Order. I put it to you that the Civ franchise hasn't entirely succeeded in keeping all of 6000 years equally playable, and I am dubious that adding more dull turns is going to help. Increase the dynamism and possibilities within the current span, then worry about adding on to either end (Prehistoric or Future)
- But, having said that, I know that there's a lot of interest in extended the Prehistoric/Future timescale (several Mods for both), and, to be honest, the 'Future Tech' provisions of Test Of Time were some of the most interesting parts of that game to me.
Your relations with other settlements could be peaceful, so that a way to pass through with at least scouts should be found. This could even be tied with the whole tolerance they grant you, like if you are passing through, they could either attack without warning as soon as possible, observe you some turns and attack without warning (maybe even ambush you - barb rising), or attack you only if you do stuff in their territory, like settling a city or working a tile, or trying to contact you diplomatically (pacifists) at a given time. This could work a little like passing through Civ5 City-States territory, but with different sensibilities according to the tribe (random : no uniques) and maybe also its situation. There could even be a color system from green to red showing how likely a given tribe could attack, information given by your spies or other neighbouring tribes you could already talk to. Each part of this information would display discreetly on the map if available.
We could even take a page from previous Civs and give the settlements/barbarians Names based on historical tribes. Tie the names generated to the terrain/situation, and it would be easy to see that a tribe in the desert named 'Apache' or 'Berber' is probably going to be Trouble, without requiring 'artificial' markers.
New Source of Ideas that I have to share:
In the past week I've been reading a new book,
The Silk Roads by Peter Frankopan. It's an 800+ page monster, but has already given me two notes of interest to our discussion:
First, on nomadic 'cities':
The capital of the Khazars, a nomadic group that sat right astride part of the Silk Road, was described by contemporary travelers (8th Century CE) as being part camp and part city. Tents, tents built on top of buildings, regular brick, wood and stone buildings - all together. This indicates something I suspected, that even a nomadic or pastoral Civilization can 'settle down' given a suitably lucrative location. In this case, the Khazar Capital was on the lower Volga River perfectly placed to catch the sea trade across the Caspian Sea from Persia and the Caucasus, the pack trains coming across the steppe/desert from the east and China, and the very profitable Fur Trade coming down the Volga from northern Russia. Location, location, location, as they say.
.....This means, though, that even a mobile 'settlement' can quite historically stop and form a city without requiring any 'gamey' mechanism. If the spot is good enough, even the most ardent Horse Nomad will stop and exploit it.
Second, on the income generated by Trade:
- Even Civ V's emphasis on Gold generated by Trade Routes massively underestimates the potential. But it depended on certain commodities. Silk, Furs, Spices, Porcelain - to name the Big Four of the trade into the early Islamic World in 8 - 9th centuries CE, not only generated incredible wealth within the Civ, it also generated 'pull' outside the empire, for states as far away as Southeast Asia. Scandinavia and China to
provide these lucrative goods for the markets in the middle east (well, actually stretching from Cordoba in Spain to northwestern India and south-central Asia - Size [of market] Matters, Too).
Future Civ VI's Trade System could tie the 'value' of Luxuries to Demand, possibly based on the amount of 'urbanization' in a Civ (number and size of cities versus smaller Settlements, Villages, Towns?) and perhaps even Culture and Social Policy... Some goods always had more universal value: Food to cities or parts of a Civ that couldn't supply enough locally (Rome, for instance), Gold or Silver just about everywhere once Coinage was introduced - Copper or any other substance was a lousy substitute, the 'precious' metals were always in demand.
As to City-States, there's no reason for them to be labelled specifically as so, so that a civ and/or city could be one of them at any given time, and cease to be it when wanted also. All simply, being a C-S should give some advantages, like growing powerfull early more quickly than with building settlers (that should take much longer to build, with growth halted so that being a C-S early would be the logical step, except by conquest). I think City-States should have other affairs in mind than colonizing on a first move, like treating with their environment and its inhabitants, in order to install their power first. Installing their power could include conquer villages and minor other cities, for building a strategic power. Indeed, a City(-State) could be composed of a major city, plus other satellites, and remains a city-state... if only they would have a particular status (see next paragraph). Then, it would cease to be a C-S (specifically or not) when the leaders leads their growing forces towards the outside.
These comments tie in with my Theme of More Dynamic Game. Initially, All Settlements Are Alike, in that they may grow into a Civilization, a City State, or become the center of a Barbarian Horde. Having a new 'Civilization' appear later in the game from either a bunch of barbarians settling down to trade (see Khazars above) or a City State growing into a multi-city State/Civilization, is something I've thought the game needed for a while. The Non-Starting Civ could be from the same list that you could choose at the beginning, or a separate list tied to the list of City States, but I'd prefer the former: Most of the Civs in Civilization have always been civilizations that either started after 4000 BCE (most flagrant example: 'America') or changed into something new from an older Civilization (see: Rome versus Italy, Vikings versus Norway, Gauls versus France, etc, etc, etc.).
Right now, once you've contacted all the other civ on the map, you can pretty much plan out how the rest of the game is going to proceed, because the civs each have their own leader, unique attributes, and 'personality': sharing the map with the Zulus, Mongols, Aztecs and Assyrians - gonna be a militant game! How much more interesting if the Zulus or Mongols grow out of a set of Barbarian Settlements/Cities or City States half-way through the game? 'Never a Dull Moment' is a Good Thing in a game...
Or, give a specific status to City-States (policies ?), so that they get benefits that allow them to weight politically along with... empires, as long as distances are not the only thing that prevented them to be obliterated in reality. (France attacked Italy and Germany City-States, but on the long run it didn't stayed in those areas, that's why a system of influence decay - through culture mutations ? - should be implemented, so that a given civilization would evolve more or less sinusoidally other than proportionnally with time even if one plays well) Those specificities could translate into granting rough gold to their allIES (need a more relevant diplomacy system, with choice of side / neutrality when 2 allies fight) and reciprocally. (through material trade like with civ5 trade routes ? In that case every C-S should have double TRs than standard civs, or double anything that allows to get them, unless the fact to remain a C-S means more of something, like culture and science are penalized with number of cities in Civ5, but more significant, like culture points allowing you to unlock more and more powerful buffs as policies, but a lot less with several cities, which equals to the non-specific type of C-S, see previous paragraph)
There should be a lot more diplomatic options with City States (and Barbarians) than there are now. I've posted on that before, so let me move on a bit to the aspects of Culture and Trade.
Having a 'Culture' in each map area, set of Settlements, or however the game decides to define it, would be a Very Good Thing. For one, it provides a 'brake' on rampant Expansionism. You can, in fact, settle new cities all over the place very early (see the Greek expansion in 6 - 400 BCE all over the Mediterranean and Black Sea coasts) BUT isolated cities surrounded by a different culture, tend to end up part of that culture or a 'hybrid' of that culture and their own, quite alien to the original civilization that founded them. Sevastopol and Marseilles were both Greek City States when they were founded, but they are very thoroughly Russian and French, respectively, now and have been for hundred or thousands of years. The lack of this kind of mechanism is one reason why Europa Universalis doesn't quite work - smaller states get gobbled up by larger ones at a quite unrealistic rate, so that a game started at the earliest date never produces a map resembling the historical later start dates, even in parts of the world where the human player has no influence.
In the game, 'Culture' could perhaps be defined as certain starting Social/Religious Policies unique to given areas/regions. City States or Settlements springing up in those areas would be very resistant to 'assimilation' by a Civ that doesn't share those kinds of Policies - that 'culture'. The degree of difference would be part of this - even in Ancient/Classical times, different Culture Groups like the Germans or Jews did not assimilate well into the Roman world, and even if you militarily conquered the area, revolts and lack of tax income ('passive resistance', smuggling, cheating, etc) could make the conquest not worth the trouble in the long run, without taking Drastic Actions - the sack of Jerusalem by the Romans, the obliteration of whole cities by the Mongols, Timurids, etc. - among other things, this might make people Fear You, but it doesn't necessarily make them Cooperative, or easier to assimilate - Jerusalem is still there, and the area around it is in no way 'Roman'...
Not only countries would fall and rise during the game, but it should be a kind of permanent rule for everybody, the player included. This raises some problems, like the will of the player being seemingly obliterated by the realm of apparent randomness, even if few would be quite random, or the question of the player and the game over if its civ disappears 'accidentally'. (it would probably mutate and/or change its status)
