Charlemagne

[Patine]

Civilization is, and has always been an entirely althistorical game, where even on TSL the game is *never* meant to follow the course of history, where the civilizations are what you build over the course of the game, not what you are at the start of the game - the "civilization" you pick at the start of the game is merely flavor and familiarity to serve as a starting point for the civilization you intend to build.

The idea that we should limit who's playable based on who did or did not achieve certain anthropological benchmark, or that we should exclude tribal people or nomadic people, is in that light wholly and entirely unnecessary, because there's no reasonable non-bigoted argument why a "What if the Sioux developed an urban civilization" is inherently impossible. As a matter of fact, in the specific case of the Sioux, given there is not insignificant evidence that many of the Siouan languages can be linked to the Northern Mississippian cities of Ohio and upper Mississippi valleys, it's not only plausible that it could have happened; it's plausible that it did, in fact, happen.

(And that whole disgression with the Mississippian also point out to how much of history remains unknown to us, and how the "tribes" of European colonial thinking may have actually been the urban settled people of another time, so maybe judgemental categorization about "this group was too primitive to be a civilization" should...get lost).

I don't disagree with this. And nothing I have said indicates I do. However, the idea of quotas and caps of civilizations by continent, which is SPECIIFCALLY I was addressing, is just so artificial and arbitrary - and conspicuous - as to also be something a Civ game should definitely avoid like the plague. You, and several other posters, have been reading more into my intent and message than has been there, and even throwing these presumptions at me as though they were responding to things I'd actually, and I think that needs to end, if you will. My point is on one specific pivot, and it was only really in direct opposition to one to three posters, and had nothing to do with the presumptuous extra such you and others conjured out of nowhere. So, please, can be end an argument was never actually there?

 

[Evie]

I was not responding to *your* posts with that comment, since as you rightly pointed out, you didn't actually say that.

There are people other than you in this thread and you don't have a monopoly on me disagreeing, lol.

 

[Patine]

I was not responding to *your* posts with that comment, since as you rightly pointed out, you didn't actually say that.

There are people other than you in this thread and you don't have a monopoly on me disagreeing, lol.

Well, I'm afraid your strong aversion to tagging or quoting other posters does, understandably, lead to some muddied waters.

 

[Henri Christophe]

Well, I'm afraid your strong aversion to tagging or quoting other posters does, understandably, lead to some muddied waters.

That is a fair point, @Evie never tag the others or quotes.

 

[Evie]

I find it a cumbersome way of conversation that emphasize singling out people (and, at time, nitpicking their post by breaking them down in tiny contextless bit). rather than discussing concepts and ideas. Really, if I'm not specifically talking in very clear terms about something you actually did say (like when I poked fun at "polluting the game", or, you know, actually putting your name in my post (as I often do with you, Henri), or have some second person pronoun in there, it's generally a prettY safe bet I'm addressing ideas in general, not the specific posters who mentioned them. Mentions are something I don't like to use unless something actually important has come up ; I'm rarely that desperate for any specific person's attention.

But fair enough on there being cause for confusion.

Anyway, in this case I was simply addressing the general (and fairly common) idea that only tradititional urban settled civilizations really belong in civ naturally, and that culture and tribes that aren't urban settled civs are "artificial" addition to the game, which came up tangentially in one post but which I've heard many times elsewhere.

Originally the post was going to go into more depth about what I consider a civ, and, more relevant to the thread in general, and what I consider the benchmark to determine if two political states should be the same civilization or not (distinctly relevant to the Franks/France/Germany question), but I ran out of lunch break so I'll have to circle back on that one.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Anyway, in this case I was simply addressing the general (and fairly common) idea that only tradititional urban settled civilizations really belong in civ naturally, and that culture and tribes that aren't urban settled civs are "artificial" addition to the game, which came up tangentially in one post but which I've heard many times elsewhere.

Originally the post was going to go into more depth about what I consider a civ, and, more relevant to the thread in general, and what I consider the benchmark to determine if two political states should be the same civilization or not (distinctly relevant to the Franks/France/Germany question), but I ran out of lunch break so I'll have to circle back on that one.

I don't have a problem with cultures and tribes that aren't necessarily urbanized. I do have a hard time trying to conceptualize nomadic or semi-nomadic cultures that never had named settlements. It's a lot harder to come up with a cohesive city-list at least for those kinds of people. The Huns fall into that category whereas cultures like the Iroquois and most Polynesian groups fall under the other category as easier to make.

 

[Xandinho]

I don't have a problem with cultures and tribes that aren't necessarily urbanized. I do have a hard time trying to conceptualize nomadic or semi-nomadic cultures that never had named settlements. It's a lot harder to come up with a cohesive city-list at least for those kinds of people. The Huns fall into that category whereas cultures like the Iroquois and most Polynesian groups fall under the other category as easier to make.

I wish the game had a minor civilization system for this. I know city-states kind of fulfill that role, but it would be interesting to have a level between city-states and major civilizations. Minor civilizations would be cultural/political entities with three settlements and surrounded by a border, they might have some unique ones like improvements and units that only they would build on. Major civilizations could make deals with them or simply invade them to benefit from what they have. But their cultural identity would still remain, even with their territories annexed, there could always be the possibility of them separating.

 

[Evie]

I'd say that's a separate question of practicality to me.

They're as valid an inclusion, but they, like Mississipians, like Olmecs, like Harrapans may have to be left off because we lack the proper ingredients to represent them in game, so we may not be *able to*,

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

A note on the Mississipians and Cahokian 'civs'. In the relatively new book, Indigenous Continent by P. Hämäläinen, the author makes the point that the 'mound builder' cities/urban concentrations of the Mississippi valley were the ONLY known group in North America that emulated the hierarchial cultural/political structure of Mesoamerica or Eurasia, and they appear to have abandoned the whole idea when it stopped working for them - as in, maintaining the urban centers became too much of a job in the face of floodplain hydrodynamics, drought, and possible earthquakes. As a result their descendants/successors and other cultural groups in North America were all remarkably Unheirarchial by the time the Europeans arrived.

Another punji stick in the path of the Steady March of Progress model of Civ and Civ Game design . . .

As for Charlemagne and the Franks, since Civ will never, never, never, definitely never go the Successive Civs route that Humankind took, I doubt that we will see them as an 'official' Civ in any Civ game unless, as someone posted, there are so many playable Civs that every continent and sub-continent gets several dozen.

Just to throw it out as an idea, though, this is another possible place for a non-Civ organization in the game that represents the 'Multi-Civ' entities in history: like the Holy Roman Empire later, which at one time or the other nominally ruled over parts or most of Germany, Italy, Bohemia, Austria, etc. "Francia" that Charlemagne started ruling and ended up as head of the HRE, is another 'multi-Civ' (France, Germany) entity. Yet another might be the Mongol Empire, which within a half-century after Chingus' death had split into numerous 'Civs' based largely on the pre-Mongol political/cultural entities they had just conquered.

 

[Zaarin]

A note on the Mississipians and Cahokian 'civs'. In the relatively new book, Indigenous Continent by P. Hämäläinen, the author makes the point that the 'mound builder' cities/urban concentrations of the Mississippi valley were the ONLY known group in North America that emulated the hierarchial cultural/political structure of Mesoamerica or Eurasia, and they appear to have abandoned the whole idea when it stopped working for them - as in, maintaining the urban centers became too much of a job in the face of floodplain hydrodynamics, drought, and possible earthquakes. As a result their descendants/successors and other cultural groups in North America were all remarkably Unheirarchial by the time the Europeans arrived.

Another punji stick in the path of the Steady March of Progress model of Civ and Civ Game design . . .

During my research during my master's, one article mentioned that archaeology in Eastern North America suggests a repeated cycle, going back centuries, of centralization and hierarchy followed by decentralization and anti-hierarchy followed by confederation leading back into hierarchy and centralization, rinse, lather, repeat, with the decentralized stage generally lasting longer. Which is yet another mark against the March of Progress model. (Also funny Hämäläinen should come up. He seems to really be a rising star in Native North American studies; I cited a number of his articles in more than one paper.)

 

[Evie]

That sounds like a book I need to get my hands on.

I shall do so fortwith.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

As for Charlemagne and the Franks, since Civ will never, never, never, definitely never go the Successive Civs route that Humankind took, I doubt that we will see them as an 'official' Civ in any Civ game unless, as someone posted, there are so many playable Civs that every continent and sub-continent gets several dozen.

Just to throw it out as an idea, though, this is another possible place for a non-Civ organization in the game that represents the 'Multi-Civ' entities in history: like the Holy Roman Empire later, which at one time or the other nominally ruled over parts or most of Germany, Italy, Bohemia, Austria, etc. "Francia" that Charlemagne started ruling and ended up as head of the HRE, is another 'multi-Civ' (France, Germany) entity. Yet another might be the Mongol Empire, which within a half-century after Chingus' death had split into numerous 'Civs' based largely on the pre-Mongol political/cultural entities they had just conquered.

I mean Civ 4 already threw out Charlemagne leading a Holy Roman Empire civ with both Germany and France already in the game as separate civs.
I do think it's possible, and more probable, than some are giving it credit for. At least it's in the same realm of possibility as a separate Macedon civ.

Though I do admit if I had to choose a new "multi-civ", or "offshoot" entity to appear, I'd pick the Mughal Empire. I think it could work as a separate civ from India.

 

[Zaarin]

I mean Civ 4 already threw out Charlemagne leading a Holy Roman Empire civ with both Germany and France already in the game as separate civs.
I do think it's possible, and more probable, than some are giving it credit for. At least it's in the same realm of possibility as a separate Macedon civ.

Though I do admit if I had to choose a new "multi-civ", or "offshoot" entity to appear, I'd pick the Mughal Empire. I think it could work as a separate civ from India.

Though Civ4 made a heaping host of dubious choices so... However, I do agree that a Frankish civ led by Charlemagne would be the same concept as Alexander's Macedon civ. TBH I'd love to see Civ7 just have no civ called India and instead have two or three civs representing the Indian subcontinent, of which the Mughals are an obvious candidate. However, I also agree that a Mughal civ could theoretically stand independently from a unified India civ, though that probably means sacrificing Akbar or Jahan for Babur, who could have his capital at Kabul.

 

[Patine]

A note on the Mississipians and Cahokian 'civs'. In the relatively new book, Indigenous Continent by P. Hämäläinen, the author makes the point that the 'mound builder' cities/urban concentrations of the Mississippi valley were the ONLY known group in North America that emulated the hierarchial cultural/political structure of Mesoamerica or Eurasia, and they appear to have abandoned the whole idea when it stopped working for them - as in, maintaining the urban centers became too much of a job in the face of floodplain hydrodynamics, drought, and possible earthquakes. As a result their descendants/successors and other cultural groups in North America were all remarkably Unheirarchial by the time the Europeans arrived.

Another punji stick in the path of the Steady March of Progress model of Civ and Civ Game design . . .

Interesting analog, with the thread title civ and leader tying it in. The Roman Empire's collapse in the West was, of course, also very much about the unwieldy nature of management, government, economic, food-distribution, and communication - with the invasions of Huns and Germanic tribes only being the finishing touch, not the reason, ultimately - into the early Medieval period (a period some historian is the one ACCURATELY called the Dark Ages, specifically), and a significant degree of shifting tumult and bad record-keeping, as well primitive military organization and rudimentary kingship and social organization (comparative), and then guess makes an alliance with the Vatican, forges a big empire, is crowned successor to the Roman Emperors (in a rival claim and pretense to Byzantine Emperor), and literally begins laying down the foundations of the High Middle Ages Feudal Hierarchical system and social, economic, political, and military organization for about 500+ years to come?

 

[BuchiTaton]

Civs like Sioux, Shoshone and Cree are the best options for a civ with an actual Nomadic-Hunter design (Eurasian steppe civs were pastorial and in synergy with urban peoples of the region), a historical justification for really special gameplay. For example the resource Game (bisons, deers,etc.) could work mostly as a collectable one time bonus resource to deplet for most civs, but the Nomadic civ can built an unique Hunting Camp that allow you to use it as a long lasting resource.
This kind of uniqueness is commonly diluted in the symmetric model that all civs should fulfill in CIV games, the result is that in game the difference between Netherland and England is as big as the one between any of those to Indonesia.

About HRE and India, if population with unique Heritages (cultures) that provide Traditions (unique bonus/units/buildings/resources) either India or HRE could use it for a civ with the unique mechanic that each new city founded have a different Heritage. So India can have cities with Hindustani, Tamil, Bengali, etc. Or HRE can have Lombard, Austrian, Bohemian, etc. Cities.

 

[Zaarin]

Or HRE can have Lombard, Austrian, Bohemian, etc. Cities.

This isn't helping me get my Bohemian civ. (But I do like the overall idea.)

 

[Evie]

I'd rather we keep the civs to fairly broad bonuses that are evocative/flavorful of their history, rather than a bevy of different game mechanism that lock them into (or at least jeavily enforce) their "historical" playstyle. What if is the theme of the game, and the Shoshone developing urban societies or - if nomadic mechanisms are added - the Romans ending up pastoral nomads is part and parcel of the very essence of civ.

Paradox games are amazing - I mean, for crying out loud, my name is in the EU IV credits so it's not like I dislike them -, but Civ is a whole other game that's less serious althistory speculation, and more pure zany "what if Samurai fought Spartans" epic randomness and it shouldn't leave the niche it owns to become something it never was before. And certainly, it shouldn't try to become the more-niche-than-Paradox more realistic alternative to Paradox.

 

[Patine]

Civs like Sioux, Shoshone and Cree are the best options for a civ with an actual Nomadic-Hunter design (Eurasian steppe civs were pastorial and in synergy with urban peoples of the region), a historical justification for really special gameplay. For example the resource Game (bisons, deers,etc.) could work mostly as a collectable one time bonus resource to deplet for most civs, but the Nomadic civ can built an unique Hunting Camp that allow you to use it as a long lasting resource.
This kind of uniqueness is commonly diluted in the symmetric model that all civs should fulfill in CIV games, the result is that in game the difference between Netherland and England is as big as the one between any of those to Indonesia.

In truth, these nomadic hunter cultures didn't actually have special techniques for herd population preservation and number management that was never innovated by European or Eurasian horse nomads, though many people seem to believe they did. Their historical small numbers (and thus small demand), hunting seasons (as opposed to all-years hunting), and using the whole buffalo, every part, was all there was. If they had, in fact, become much more successful, by the general definition of the game, without a European conquest, their population and needs would have eventually overwhelmed the herd populations like European hunting historically did. There was, in fact, no grand, "magical trick," to it beyond that. After all, the ancestors of the Indigenous Western Hemisphere peoples apparently hunted mammoth, mastadons, sabre-toothed tigers, giant armadillos, and other such things right to extinction.

 

[Zaarin]

Paradox games are amazing - I mean, for crying out loud, my name is in the EU IV credits so it's not like I dislike them -, but Civ is a whole other game that's less serious althistory speculation, and more pure zany "what if Samurai fought Spartans" epic randomness and it shouldn't leave the niche it owns to become something it never was before.

100% agree with this. The absurd what-ifs are what keeps bringing me back to Civ.

In truth, these nomadic hunter cultures didn't actually have special techniques for herd population preservation and number management that was never innovated by European or Eurasian horse nomads, though many people seem to believe they did. Their historical small numbers (and thus small demand), hunting seasons (as opposed to all-years hunting), and using the whole buffalo, every part, was all there was. If they had, in fact, become much more successful, by the general definition of the game, without a European conquest, their population and needs would have eventually overwhelmed the herd populations like European hunting historically did. There was, in fact, a grand, "magical trick," to it beyond that. After all, the ancestors of the Indigenous Western Hemisphere peoples apparently hunted mammoth, mastadons, sabre-toothed tigers, giant armadillos, and other such things right to extinction.

I'd say there are two important differences between the Indigenous peoples of the Americas and the Mesolithic/Chalcolithic peoples of Europe. The first is that we know nothing about said people of Europe beyond what archaeology can tell us. The second is that we don't have major settled civilizations in North America as an alternative; the closest we have, the Mississippians, is just on the cusp of the historical and was already crumbling to dust when Europeans arrived. Combined together, that means we simply have different options to select from in North America and in Europe. To Evie's point about the absurdity of Civ, though, if we had more information about Bronze Age Europe, I'd be perfectly happy to see them included alongside the major powers; Civ is more fun for including the also-rans and second-tier powers. That's why I consistently argue against making the Haudenosaunee or Lakota staples; as interesting as they are, there are just too many interesting options in North America.

(Though to further your point about the problematic myth of the Ecoconscious Indian, even the "use the whole buffalo" part is untrue. E.g., before the introduction of the horse Plains people hunted bison by driving herds off cliffs, which resulted in a lot more meat, hides, etc. than they had the means to process. Likewise, Indigenous people hunted white-tailed deer and beavers to local extinction when European buyers created the demand for them. Your point stands, though, that they were less wasteful because they had less means and opportunity to be wasteful.)

 

[BuchiTaton]

I'd rather we keep the civs to fairly broad bonuses that are evocative/flavorful of their history, rather than a bevy of different game mechanism that lock them into (or at least jeavily enforce) their "historical" playstyle. What if is the theme of the game, and the Shoshone developing urban societies or - if nomadic mechanisms are added - the Romans ending up pastoral nomads is part and parcel of the very essence of civ.

Paradox games are amazing - I mean, for crying out loud, my name is in the EU IV credits so it's not like I dislike them -, but Civ is a whole other game that's less serious althistory speculation, and more pure zany "what if Samurai fought Spartans" epic randomness and it shouldn't leave the niche it owns to become something it never was before. And certainly, it shouldn't try to become the more-niche-than-Paradox more realistic alternative to Paradox.

These two examples are more unique that the average civ design but are not a whole different game mechanic.
The Nomadic-Hunter style do not really mean moving your whole cities around, just a unique improvement that turn an otherwise one time resource in an long lasting source of food but also production and/or gold. Later in game that civ would be pretty much as industrial as any other.

The Confederation of Cultures civ would not be the only one using Heritages, the idea is that the rest of the civs found cities of their only Heritage while this civ have a set of 5*-6* different Heritages so basicaly is a civ that need to found and keep happy more cities to unlock more bonus, a civ that grows in their inner diversity.

About the Romans being pastoral nomads, something like this would be a novelty in CIV since there are not realy alternative ways feeling like this for any civ. But for a game with around 50 civs have too flexible civs turn each one even less unique, 50 civs that could become anything could dangerously turn CIV in a Humankind debacle of identity less civs.