Basis of civilization-identity

[Loppan Torkel]

Not sure if it's been up before but I got the idea from this thread - http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=113351 - where Greekstud among other things suggested that you should be able to play religions.

I was wondering if you not could differentiate the civs in other ways than the traits and cultural groups only. The Hebrews for example would have their identity/bound in religion (not necessarily a specific), the Germans could have their in the blood (ex sangvinicum(?)), the Americans in the law (the constitution) and the French in the territory. The other civs would be put in these categories too, perhaps in between some, or in some new, strong identity through language for example.

I understand that identities aren't this clear so this would of course be a generalisation, which still of course could be totally wrong, someone correct me if it is. I just found it a bit interesting, and if it could be implemented, it could make the civs a bit more unique.

And since religion and culture are in, this could differentiate the civs and make them more vulnerable/resistent or weak/powerful in these areas.

Thoughts? ideas?

 

[Chinghis]

Wow, fun. Sounds like you've been reading up a bit on national identity and nationalism, eh? I think the French might be language or.... culture, however. Maybe I'm wrong, but my impression has always been that you can pretty much become French if you adapt French cultural ways (and abandon your own, I guess). And, think of French policy in Francophone Africa, for example. Russia might also be a language-based identity, in that sense.

Not certain how you'd make this work in-game, but it's an interesting thought.

 

[dh_epic]

It's an interesting thought, and certainly one with some degree of accuracy.

But for the most part, I already feel constrained enough by Civ-traiits. Imagine that the very basis for your civilization's identity were hardwired.

As a side note, though, I don't think Civilization does a good enough job of representing just how important Nationalism is as a social innovation. Up until then, people pledged allegiance to a fearless leader, and everything that he liked was good, and everything he hated was bad. With Nationalism, they pledged allegiance to a flag, a land, and its people, and a constitution -- to serve them. They become a land of "laws, not men".

 

[Loppan Torkel]

@Chinghis - It's been a while since I read about this stuff, but I have a faint recollection of the French having their identity tied to their territory, but of course there's no absolute truth to be found here. The language is an obvious part of each civilizations' identity but I can imagine it being a particulary strong part in the French identity. The best thing would be if they made it a degree of where the identities lies.

These identities would in some cases have to be a projection from nationalistic movements, but since many civilizations, like the americans for example didn't even exist until not that long ago I don't see that much trouble in it.

@dh epic - I hope they make the traits somewhat choosable, where you get a limited collection of traits to choose from either in the beginning or during the course of the game. If this happen you wouldn't be as constrained but at the same time the civs wouldn't be as unique.
Anyway the identities of the civs is more natural if it lies in how they identify themselves, whether it'd be in religion, race, language, territory or the law, rather than in the hardwired traits.

It could also enhance a cultural, multilayered kind of conflict between the civs, depending on how far they take these concepts.

 

[Loppan Torkel]

Culture was a nice feature in civ3, but the concept could be expanded and branched out a lot more.
This could contribute to another level of complexity in the culture-model. A civ that have their identity in their religion could possibly be easier assimilated, but resisting more in the beginning, by another civ identified through religion, while they would continue to be a minority for much longer in a civ with their identity in their blood.

I'm not entirely sure about the concept myself, I have to admit, it's pretty vague and hard to find a consensus in how the civilizations identify themselves. I just found it to be a better way to define the different civs in how they identify/ied themselves rather than by traits only like seafaring or agriculture, which is more how they've adapted to circumstances, which I still like but even more with a bit of selection.

They could of course also make the basis of identification a choice where, like you're into dh epic, some could come with nationalism. Other could come earlier like those based in religion.

 

[Lockesdonkey]

@Chinghis - It's been a while since I read about this stuff, but I have a faint recollection of the French having their identity tied to their territory, but of course there's no absolute truth to be found here. The language is an obvious part of each civilizations' identity but I can imagine it being a particulary strong part in the French identity. The best thing would be if they made it a degree of where the identities lies.

I seem to remember that the great pride of the French lies in their language and history, yes, but also their artistic history and most especially their food!

 

[Loppan Torkel]

@Lockesdonkey - Ok, perhaps France was a bad example for territorial-identification. The problem however with tying the identification to language and history is that most nations distinguish themselves in this manner. Food and art is cultural and hard to implement in civ in another way .

A third alternative to identification would be to let the it develop throughout the history, you adopt a certain religion - this religion will be what ties your civ together, at least until the enlightment. You have the same territory for a long time - your people will feel passionate about it. You don't trade a lot - your culture will be valued high and so on.

The whole point of identifying the civs' 'true' identity, and seperating them from eachother would of course then not be achieved, which I would like...

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

I think the best way to distinguish each civs identity is to let them freely evolve. This way, the French in a game may look very different from the French we know today. What should define a civs identity should be a combination of it Culture Group, its surrounding terrain, the kind and proximity of its neighbours-and the civ traits it develops as a result, its government and religion choices and its civics settings.
When taken together, it would be theoretically possible to play 100 games, with the same civ, yet NEVER have said civ 'look' the same in any 2 games.
For instance, in one game, France could be isolated on a mountainous island, causing them to become industrious and seafaring, with a penchant for governments centred around 'religious despotism', and a deep-seated hatred of ALL foreigners. In order to keep their people in line, and to deal with the slaves captured on one of their many coastal raids, they have instituted a religion based around ritual sacrifice.

In another game, France is on a lovely combination of grasslands, plains and nearby coasts. Their lack of shield bearing terrain, and the close proximity of several neighbours, causes them to evolve commercial and agricultural traits. They have a strong culture of their own, but freely accept the culture and peoples of other lands (which they feel enriches their identity). In keeping with this, they have adopted a popular local religion focused around a pantheon of deities, and have settled on a government made up of powerful merchant and farming families.

Of course, these are just TWO possible outcomes, and are only the outcomes at the beginning of the game. Later on, in example 1, the French may end up settling on the mainland more, and become 'civilized' by those they once attacked, they might abandon their xenophobic, blood-soaked ways in favour of a peaceful religion, and the pursuit of knowledge and wealth-thus leading them to evolve commercial and scientific traits.
In example 2, the French might encounter famine and war with its neighbours for precious food, the famine makes people very unhappy, so the rulers boost the role of religion to pacify the masses ('it is the will of the Gods'). This, then, may cause them to evolve religious and militaristic traits. They may also have to abandon their commercial government in favour of a more absolutist model which draws support from its religious and military elite-all the easier to wage war for precious food.
As you can see, this is merely the tip of the iceberg. Almost unlimited potential for variation, both between and within games, and at NO point is the player boxed in as they currently are!!!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[Loppan Torkel]

I do see your point Aussie Lurker, but I don't entirely agree with you. I like to be able to choose between the different 'boxes', because it's a way of giving flavour to civ and another way to make each game unlike any other.

The way you picture civ, the only difference between the civilizations would be the name. What makes France France in your example above? I want some historical connections between the civ I play and it's reallife counterpart. Generally I think many people, particulary the mainstreem audience, want the same. When you're playing the Scandinavians you think seafaring people with a viking unit, and that's what make them Scandinavians.

However I agree that there should be more options allowed, especially when it comes to the traits. Not totally free but as a limited choice set for each civilization.
These options could be offered from the start or during the game but set from the beginning based on the civilization of your choice.
This would not box the player in entirely but give different flavours to the civs, and give the players tough decisions during the game how to stear the civilization.

This would of course make the civilizations more like eachother, which is one reason why the basis for the civilizations' identity would be a good idea. It would also give the civilizations another cultural differentiation apart from the cultural groups.

In the end I'd like to say that the game you describe Aussie Lurker seems really fun, but it requires too much to make it work, imo. Civ3 wasn't even close to the dynamic gameplay you're describing and I don't see it happening in civ4 either. A game based in the evolution of civilizations is just too much to hope for.

 

[dh_epic]

To some degree, I think a lot of this is resolved by having different victory conditions.

Right now, the only way you win is by spreading your empire. But in reality, not every Nation is trying to achieve empire. Still, Classic Conquest Victory should always be available.

An Improved Cultural Victory based on spreading your culture (instead of merely building it up) would be a step in the right direction. You achieve a cultural victory when other nations have embraced a certain amount of your culture -- that you've made an "impact".

As for spreading the rule of law and justice... I have advocated a "Glory Victory", where you get special points for doing altruistic or passionate acts. Like liberating a recently conquered territory and giving it back to the owner. There is much evidence that Nations have done this for a long time, and there's even a philosophical basis called Just War Theory, which has existed for Millenia.

And I think a Power Victory would be an interesting alternative to a Domination victory. Rather than outright conquering all your neighbors, you vassalize them. If you could achieve Domination Victory by conquering 50% of the world, then Power Victory would be achieved by conquering OR vassalizing 66% of the world. Of course this depends on overhauling many aspects, from diplomacy, to war, to AI.

I know it's not exactly what people are talking about when it comes to identity... but for such a vague concept, I think "what is our Nation's goal?" is the most tangible part of it. For Greece it might be the spreading of their civilized way of life (Culture), but for America it might be spreading a sense of law and justice (Glory), while the USSR might define success by the size of the Communist World (Power). And, of course, good old Rome, Persia, even Napoleonic France just love to have a lot of land and a killer Military (Conquest).

Identity, to some degree, is "what is it that I'm good at? What can I do better than anybody else?"

 

[Chinghis]

I think the best way to distinguish each civs identity is to let them freely evolve. This way, the French in a game may look very different from the French we know today. What should define a civs identity should be a combination of it Culture Group, its surrounding terrain, the kind and proximity of its neighbours-and the civ traits it develops as a result, its government and religion choices and its civics settings.
When taken together, it would be theoretically possible to play 100 games, with the same civ, yet NEVER have said civ 'look' the same in any 2 games.
For instance, in one game, France could be isolated on a mountainous island, causing them to become industrious and seafaring, with a penchant for governments centred around 'religious despotism', and a deep-seated hatred of ALL foreigners. In order to keep their people in line, and to deal with the slaves captured on one of their many coastal raids, they have instituted a religion based around ritual sacrifice.
{snip}

I think this is a great idea, actually. Think about it - why would Hittites, for example, start out life in 4000 B.C. as "commercial"? There is no commerce at that time. Something in their national makeup as the state or culture evolved made them that way.

 

[sir_schwick]

The way you picture civ, the only difference between the civilizations would be the name. What makes France France in your example above? I want some historical connections between the civ I play and it's reallife counterpart. Generally I think many people, particulary the mainstreem audience, want the same. When you're playing the Scandinavians you think seafaring people with a viking unit, and that's what make them Scandinavians.

Although I consider it a very regressive view, it is one that many people do share. Unfortunately most of the potential gamers I know would prefer replaying history rather than rewriting it. Considering the market is those players, I think our dreams of a true civlization simulator may never come.

 

[dh_epic]

I think half the appeal of when I first heard about a game called "civilization" was the idea of rewriting history. I can't wait to make the Roman Empire last forever, I thought.

And I loved the game, despite its limitations. But I remain a fan in part because of the possibility that one day you'd be able to do more than simulate 6000 years of war.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

You do raise some good points, Loppan, and I do think I know how they could be addressed whilst still retaining my grand vision.
First up, you could have a 'retain national identity settings' box in the set-up screen. If this is on, then the nations in the game act pretty much as they do in Civ3-with traits and preferred/shunned government types remaining the same throughout the game.
Without it, civ traits evolve according to situational factors, as do government preferences, though culture group, STARTING civ traits-possibly-and unique unit(s) would remain the same! Of course, when you consider that units in civ4 will apparently be able to use experience to give them special advatages, then here is another place for MAJOR differention between civs IN a game, and even within the same civ BETWEEN games!!
Oh Chingis, as for there being no commerce in 4000 BC, I must disagree with you. Early towns and villages were trading all throughout the Jordan valley as far back as 6000BC. In fact, they have linked trade and commerce to the earliest farming communities-these groups also brought farm produce to hunter/gatherer tribes in Eastern Europe in return for trinkets and other bits and pieces. Of course, the Eastern European tribes used what they recieived to start their OWN farming communites. Watch 'Stories from the Stone Age' if you can, its a fascinating program for all die-hard Civ fans.
Back on topic though, have a look at a nation like Italy, and you can see how fixed traits make no sense-under the Etruscans, Italy was Commercial and Religious. Later, under the Romans, it became Industrous and expansionist-followed by Industrious and Milataristic. During the Dark ages, under the Holy Roman Empire and Roman Catholicism, they became Religious and Expansionist. Later they changed to religious and commercial, then evolved from Religious to Scientific and commercial-during the renaissance. So, even real history shows us why evolving civ traits are such an essential part of the game.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[Loppan Torkel]

-@Aussie:

Back on topic though, have a look at a nation like Italy, and you can see how fixed traits make no sense-under the Etruscans, Italy was Commercial and Religious. Later, under the Romans, it became Industrous and expansionist-followed by Industrious and Milataristic. During the Dark ages, under the Holy Roman Empire and Roman Catholicism, they became Religious and Expansionist. Later they changed to religious and commercial, then evolved from Religious to Scientific and commercial-during the renaissance. So, even real history shows us why evolving civ traits are such an essential part of the game.

True, fixed traits doesn't make much sense, but on the other hand I don't think a system where the traits automatically and too easely changes to fit the situation. There has to be either a sluggishness or a non-changeable quality, say you gain a new one based on your behavior during last era but keep the former traits the same, to the traits in your system to make it fun. Or else all civs warring will be militaristic, all civs not warring non-militaristic, thus making the trait practically useless.

No, I still think that you being able to choose a limited set of traits during the game would be just as fun and a lot more easy to implement, and you'd still have the evolutionary aspect of your system.

What about making the limitations of your choice like this: You are the Germans. At the entering of Industrialization you are to choose a new trait. The choices you are given are based on the civ-specific traits as the Germans, plus the way you've played the game so far:
-Industrial OX
-Militaristic *X
-Scientific OX
-Religious X
-Expansionist *
...where the * is the earlier choices and the X is prohibited because of not meeting the requirements.
Or you could keep the maximum number of traits to two and let you change one of the earlier traits instead.

A true evolution based system could box the player in as well. If you instead give the player some way to give direction, through choosing traits for example, he would be more free to plan his game with decisions between limited options.
-
-@Sir Schwick

Although I consider it a very regressive view, it is one that many people do share. Unfortunately most of the potential gamers I know would prefer replaying history rather than rewriting it. Considering the market is those players, I think our dreams of a true civlization simulator may never come.

You have to consider that there's no absolute difference between replaying and rewriting history. This is a game based in history, we just replay it with a lot of changes, new world, new neighbours and so on. There's no way we can step out of our historical context - I don't think we could come up with fundamentally different techtree for example. Giving the civs different traits is an easy way to give the game a longer life and it gives people an easy way to identify themselves/-the real civs- with their civs. The question is - how many of the optional connections to the real world is a good level to make the game fun?

@dh epic: I agree that the victory conditions could use a lookover, but instead of having pure 'victoryconditions' I'd rather have victorypoints, which was suggested by Warpstorm in my Causes-thread - http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=110381 - , like in Medieval: Total War. This could be a way to prevent snowballing effect and still make the early era as important as the endgame. I'd still like to keep victoryconditions but they could be made totally different with the introduction of victorypoints.

And though you're right about the concept of identity, I'm talking about the national concept of identity, which is vague, but I believe you could find some differencies between the nations. This could be a good way to seperate the civs in a cultural way, which imo would be more valid ground than many other differentiations made in civ. I'm not sure if this concept of national-identity is controversal, it wouldn't surprice me. But I think it's more fundamental and better than giving the national-identity a collective direction to what to achieve. This could instead be implemented through the 'Causes' I mentioned above.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Loppan, I never said it should be EASY, or even that it should occur OFTEN. My feeling is that, once every age or so, your play style and national 'make up' should be used as a basis to determine if your traits should 'evolve' or stay the same. The first example I gave were in situations where France had undergone a massive and long-term change in strategy which, in turn, led to an evolution in civ traits! Oh and, as far as your NATIONAL identity goes, I think that Civics and religion will both play a key factor in your nations identity. For instance, are you people materaliastic and hedonistic, or are they ascetics who believe that a life of denial and obediance is best. Well, this could be determined by the difference in your Libertarianism and Materialism settings. Another identity factor is do you worship an all-powerful God of Love and Peace, or do you worship the Spirits of Nature in all their 'guises', or do you Worship a Pantheon of Anthropomorphic Gods? Not only that but how IMPORTANT is this faith to both the State and your peoples daily life? Of course, yet again, this is only a couple of examples of how civics and Religion can play a role in identity-and these settings can, of course, effect your civ traits!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[Loppan Torkel]

Ok, it was your Etruscan-Roman-Italian example that scared me a bit . But I've to ask - doesn't my limited, choosable, evolving traitsystem give you enough freedom? I have not that much faith that I think your system could be implmented in a good way.
edit: Another thing - If realism is to be top priority, there should be an ambition to make the traitsystem gradual, which would fit the evolution of traits. It sounds good but I'm not too fond of it, but perhaps it would work out fine.

And it's great that we'll be able to define and develop our civs to a greater extent through religion and civics (I've no idea what that means), but these features will probably not differentiate the civilzations identity from the beginning, at least that's what I'm hoping, and I guess you're hoping too.
So there's where my national-identity comes in - The hebrews will for example keep their religion, as a minority, for a longer time if they become conquered by a civ which not has it's identity in religion, if it does a religious schism/conflict will occur. It just seems realistic, but of course it is harder to come up with other examples.
The Americans that have their constitution, would they be more tolerant? more easely assimilated?

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

OK, the one main problem which I had with set traits, and why I'm not so keen on your selectable traits, is this: It lets warmongers and expansionists off the hook because they can continue there behaviour whilst still retaining, for example, their commercial and religious traits. In MY system, a player is forced to consider his actions in terms of how it may change the character of his society. Also, though, it allows a player to choose whether he will 'play to his strengths', so to speak, or try and break the mold and strike out on a path that contradicts your civs current character. The choice is yours, whilst still allowing room for chance events to push you one way or another.
As for my Etruscan example, remember that the Etruscans were in power for over 1000 years BEFORE the Romans came to prominence-thats still a long time to retain a single set of traits and, historically, was brought about by a shift in the centre of power from Tarquinia to Rome, coupled with a change in government from Monarchy to Republic.

As for Religion and Civics, noone really knows how they will be implemented but, for my part, I hope that civics will define how the people and their government (as represented loosely by the player) feel about such issues as religious belief, political and social freedoms, foreigners, military power, Legal Power, the influence of the Private Sector-just to name a few. Religion will hopefully be defined by a combination of the kind of deities and afterlife (if any) it promotes, and the underlying nature/government of the society which practice the religion. If it helps, to use your Hebrew example, we could say that the Hebrews were a Religious/Agricultural civ, wheras the Romans were an Industrious/Militaristic civ. More importantly for the Hebrews, though, the Romans had a Mediterranean Polytheistic system (and a Theism of less than 5), wheras the Hebrews had a North African Monotheistic system (and a Theism of about 7-8). What this meant for the Hebrews was that not only did the Romans make no attempt to convert Hebrews to their own faith (as they barely believed in it themselves) but the Hebrews strong religious culture was able to convert more than a few of the Romans to Monotheism. In time, this monotheistic groundswell became so strong within the Roman Empire, that the Empire was 'forced' to adopt Monotheism as their state religion-though they adopted a Mediterranean version-and then ramp up their Theism levels in order to convert the whole empire AND its neighbours to their belief system. The upshot is that Hebrew culture survived because of their strong religious beliefs-something which could be represented within the game. Anyway, hope that makes sense.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[dh_epic]

To move off overall Civ identity and focus on Civ traits...

I think that Civ traits should be banned in favor of a variety of bonuses. As the game goes on, there are various choices that you make about what's more important in your civilization. That way Rome can move from Militaristic/Industrious/Expansionist to Religious/Commercial/Scientific to Militaristic/Religious/Expansionist, and in varying proportions too.

I think it's much easier than developing an "evolving traits" system, and better than static traits. You might get a 10% bonus to commerce for a while, then end up with a 15% bonus to religion for a 5% commercial bonus, and then watch as one of those bonuses expire...

The question would become how the bonuses are distributed. Where do they come from? The tech tree and wonders are obvious answers, but you could go further, and even play with new features...

 

[Sirian]

The question would become how the bonuses are distributed. Where do they come from? The tech tree and wonders are obvious answers, but you could go further, and even play with new features...

I disagree. If bonuses were dynamic and based on your playstyle choices, then each playstyle would be relegated to a narrow range of gameplay.

The current civ-trait system ensures that every playstyle can experience every combination of traits and minor bonuses. I've always liked that: I'm a nut for variety of gameplay options.


- Sirian