This is true: Geoff Knorr and his team are wonderful. However, I think composing more music would be a better investment than era themes (especially since many of the Industrial and nearly all the Atomic are so bombastic they're unpleasant to listen to).
Civ 7 Speculation: Fundamental changes.
- Thread starter AntSou
- Start date
Boris Gudenuf
Deity
Reference 1 and 2. I am convinced that simplified Leaders or leader representation will feel like a step back to the gaming community. On the other hand, after Humankind's ability to play several very different Factions/Civs in the same game, I think Civ VII will have to address 'progression' in Civs and/or Leaders somehow.
I know right now, as soon as the Gauls were available, I started trying to figure out ow to turn a Gaulic Civ into a French one in the early mid-game (Medieval Era). Right now, all I can do is start renaming Cities, but I think Civ VII is going to have to allow much more. At the same time, it cannot put the gamer into a strait jacket: you start as Gaul, you will always 'advance' to France - there will have to be variations possible, either historical or purely game-based. Just for instance, a Gaulic Civ with lots of coastal cities and sea-based trade could have the option of becoming Netherlands OR France, or, earlier, turning the tables, conquering Rome and wandering off into complete Alt-History. I think allowing some kind of dynamism is going to be necessary to compete, but I think they will also have to keep some kind of fully animated Leader representation to quell the expectations of the gaming masses.
I've posted elsewhere my solution: keep the Leader off-screen and use a diplomatic meeting room/hall that is specific to each Civ with diplomats, ministers, that are animated and even interactive. That way the graphic burden remains one massive animation project per Civ nut, potentially, multiple Leaders per Civ at the same time (I still think also that the designers could have a lot of fun with this: a statue of the Great Leader visible in a hall behind the meeting room, and workmen starting to remove the statue because they just Changed Leaders) That gives us the animated interaction while not requiring a massive graphics-resource Sink to provide even 1 - 2 Alternate Leaders.
As to the Civ VII map, it's going to have to advance by an Order of Magnitude over Civ IV/V/VI: Humankind has definitely set the bar very high here. They could get away from the realism = dull equation of Civ V by using the vast variety of the Real World: foliage in various colors (introduce seasonal variation similar to the day-night cycle now allowed?) more variety of landforms, waterfalls, hanging canyons, etc. Even continental variation introducing the difference, say, between the Dolomite mountains of Italy, the Grand Tetons of the USA and/or the steep forested hills/mountains of south-central China. There's simply no excuse for falling back on a map of Plains - Grasslands - Desert - One Type of Forest - One Type of Rainforest - One Marsh.
Just my tuppence-worth: most of my ideas on the subject are in the https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/ideas-for-the-perfect-4x-historical-game.654805/ thread, which I regard as including Civ VII improvements as well as 'wild ideas' starting from a Clean Slate.
I know right now, as soon as the Gauls were available, I started trying to figure out ow to turn a Gaulic Civ into a French one in the early mid-game (Medieval Era). Right now, all I can do is start renaming Cities, but I think Civ VII is going to have to allow much more. At the same time, it cannot put the gamer into a strait jacket: you start as Gaul, you will always 'advance' to France - there will have to be variations possible, either historical or purely game-based. Just for instance, a Gaulic Civ with lots of coastal cities and sea-based trade could have the option of becoming Netherlands OR France, or, earlier, turning the tables, conquering Rome and wandering off into complete Alt-History. I think allowing some kind of dynamism is going to be necessary to compete, but I think they will also have to keep some kind of fully animated Leader representation to quell the expectations of the gaming masses.
I've posted elsewhere my solution: keep the Leader off-screen and use a diplomatic meeting room/hall that is specific to each Civ with diplomats, ministers, that are animated and even interactive. That way the graphic burden remains one massive animation project per Civ nut, potentially, multiple Leaders per Civ at the same time (I still think also that the designers could have a lot of fun with this: a statue of the Great Leader visible in a hall behind the meeting room, and workmen starting to remove the statue because they just Changed Leaders) That gives us the animated interaction while not requiring a massive graphics-resource Sink to provide even 1 - 2 Alternate Leaders.
As to the Civ VII map, it's going to have to advance by an Order of Magnitude over Civ IV/V/VI: Humankind has definitely set the bar very high here. They could get away from the realism = dull equation of Civ V by using the vast variety of the Real World: foliage in various colors (introduce seasonal variation similar to the day-night cycle now allowed?) more variety of landforms, waterfalls, hanging canyons, etc. Even continental variation introducing the difference, say, between the Dolomite mountains of Italy, the Grand Tetons of the USA and/or the steep forested hills/mountains of south-central China. There's simply no excuse for falling back on a map of Plains - Grasslands - Desert - One Type of Forest - One Type of Rainforest - One Marsh.
Just my tuppence-worth: most of my ideas on the subject are in the https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/ideas-for-the-perfect-4x-historical-game.654805/ thread, which I regard as including Civ VII improvements as well as 'wild ideas' starting from a Clean Slate.
Evie
Pronounced like Eevee
Going back to Civ II style emissaries (with high end art) would also greatly facilitate the use of leaders for whom there is no existing art.
Somewhat disagreed on the terrain, however. Simplicity has value, and while graphical variation would certainly be nice, we should keep the broad terrain types fairly simple, and readily recognizeable.
Somewhat disagreed on the terrain, however. Simplicity has value, and while graphical variation would certainly be nice, we should keep the broad terrain types fairly simple, and readily recognizeable.
Ryansinbela
King
I have been attempting to work on a Civ list in my doc, but I keep getting my brain tangled up with different variables
Boris Gudenuf
Deity
Also, for those who really want to Personalize their game, Civ VII could take the Civ VI Great People one step further with Great Ministers who are represented by animations. You could find yourself facing a fully-animated Tallyrand, Olivares or Hasdai ibn Shaprut in the Meeting Hall - and getting some hard bargaining from any of them!
Additional Diplomats in such a context could be a DLC all by itself, especially if combined with Alternate Architecture - your Diplomatic Hall being customizable as well as distinctive to your Civ.
Here you touch on the hub of the Game Problem: making a map that is both esthetically pleasing but also, above all, Functional as a GUI. I suspect from my own experience and comments from some others, that Humankind's terrain goes a bit too far in the esthetics department and may not be as Functional as Civ VI's. That just means that there is another 'sweet spot' between the two that can give us both a better looking map and an functional one. Civ VII will have to make the effort to find that Spot, because I don't think I'm the only gamer who will no longer be satisfied with the style of terrain in either Civ V or Civ VI.
Evie
Pronounced like Eevee
Had a thought last night about the leader-shifting mechanism. And it involves the Governors mechanism.
Rather than generic governors, I would like to see a system where each civ has access to its own array of governors, representing leaders (political or otherwise) from across the civilization's history (including leaders from offshot and (alleged, eg, France-Gaul) predecessors of that civilization. You might start with only a select few available (though at minimum two to three of them), with more of them being unlocked later in the game.
Now, these governors, when assigned to one of your city, work largely as Civ VI governors, although their ability might inch more in civilization leaders kind of unique abilities. Some of them might even have unique units, buildings or district associated with them, that can only be built in the city they govern (that's not even a new idea; Liang already does that).
However, if you assign one of them to the capital, they become your new leader. The leader-governor has its ability affect the entire empire rather than only a single city (so you gain the ability to use the leader UU or UB or UD across your entire civilization, abilities that were limited to tiles owned by a city affect all tiles owned by the civ, and so forth). As with the previous idea, some of those leaders would result in your civilization being reskinned - if the English civ gets George Washington, they may change name and flag to America, for example.
Also since leaders are less tied to specific tiers or ages, Babylon would probably gain most of its leader-governors earlier on (but might have some of their higher promotions levels locked behind later techs to balance it out), while others may take longer to unlock some of their later governors, but have access to more promotions earlier on for their early governors/leaders. This may also encourage different playstyles (eg, civs with more later governors may be encouraged to go wide later and tall earlier, while civs with more earlier ones may be encouraged to go wide earlier, with vertical growth later).
This also has the benefit of a)making sure all those alternate leaders still are useful regardless of who you pick, and b)being different from Humankind! Less of a progression, more of an expanding array of choices.
Rather than generic governors, I would like to see a system where each civ has access to its own array of governors, representing leaders (political or otherwise) from across the civilization's history (including leaders from offshot and (alleged, eg, France-Gaul) predecessors of that civilization. You might start with only a select few available (though at minimum two to three of them), with more of them being unlocked later in the game.
Now, these governors, when assigned to one of your city, work largely as Civ VI governors, although their ability might inch more in civilization leaders kind of unique abilities. Some of them might even have unique units, buildings or district associated with them, that can only be built in the city they govern (that's not even a new idea; Liang already does that).
However, if you assign one of them to the capital, they become your new leader. The leader-governor has its ability affect the entire empire rather than only a single city (so you gain the ability to use the leader UU or UB or UD across your entire civilization, abilities that were limited to tiles owned by a city affect all tiles owned by the civ, and so forth). As with the previous idea, some of those leaders would result in your civilization being reskinned - if the English civ gets George Washington, they may change name and flag to America, for example.
Also since leaders are less tied to specific tiers or ages, Babylon would probably gain most of its leader-governors earlier on (but might have some of their higher promotions levels locked behind later techs to balance it out), while others may take longer to unlock some of their later governors, but have access to more promotions earlier on for their early governors/leaders. This may also encourage different playstyles (eg, civs with more later governors may be encouraged to go wide later and tall earlier, while civs with more earlier ones may be encouraged to go wide earlier, with vertical growth later).
This also has the benefit of a)making sure all those alternate leaders still are useful regardless of who you pick, and b)being different from Humankind! Less of a progression, more of an expanding array of choices.
Last edited:
Ryansinbela
King
Thanks for helping me decide what to do with Colonial Civs in my doc (Although it weirds me that England and America will never meet)
Evie
Pronounced like Eevee
Another thought I'm having:
Barbarians should go. They don't really correspond ot any historical reality - just to clichés of greco-roman history. But most of the most noticeable barbarian groups of Greco-Roman history have long since been added as one civ or another in the game.
What we should have instead of Barbarians in the old Civ sense is that *everyone* is perceived as a barbarian in the early game. It's only with certain techs and civics, and prolonged contact, that perception shift from barbarians to an identified civilization.
Barbarian civs, and barbarian city states, exist in a state that's neither war nor peace: units can fight (how likely a civ is to be aggressive as barbarians would depend on their settings, etc), but you can have ongoing trade deals with neighboring barbarian cities even while your units are fighting. Trade routes and trade deals would accelerate recognition of a civ as a civilization and moving them outside the Barbarian group. Ideally, you would be able to see their settlement, but maybe not even their names - that would require advancing your communications with that civ (eg, learning their language).
There should be commensurately more city states and cities in the game, to allow for the ones that will invariably be destroyed as Barbarian Encampments in the early stage of the game. Which can also have long-term consquences ("Oh, you were hoping to run into the Jerusalem City State? Too bad, you razed it back when it was a Barbarian Camp...")
Barbarians should go. They don't really correspond ot any historical reality - just to clichés of greco-roman history. But most of the most noticeable barbarian groups of Greco-Roman history have long since been added as one civ or another in the game.
What we should have instead of Barbarians in the old Civ sense is that *everyone* is perceived as a barbarian in the early game. It's only with certain techs and civics, and prolonged contact, that perception shift from barbarians to an identified civilization.
Barbarian civs, and barbarian city states, exist in a state that's neither war nor peace: units can fight (how likely a civ is to be aggressive as barbarians would depend on their settings, etc), but you can have ongoing trade deals with neighboring barbarian cities even while your units are fighting. Trade routes and trade deals would accelerate recognition of a civ as a civilization and moving them outside the Barbarian group. Ideally, you would be able to see their settlement, but maybe not even their names - that would require advancing your communications with that civ (eg, learning their language).
There should be commensurately more city states and cities in the game, to allow for the ones that will invariably be destroyed as Barbarian Encampments in the early stage of the game. Which can also have long-term consquences ("Oh, you were hoping to run into the Jerusalem City State? Too bad, you razed it back when it was a Barbarian Camp...")
Ryansinbela
King
I have seen something similar in the 4X thread. A doc explaining units was made
In my doc I have listed possible Civs. Should I split India and Persia?
In my doc I have listed possible Civs. Should I split India and Persia?
I love this. One thing I've really wanted to see brought over from the Endless games is the diplomacy: you are at Cold War until you either sign a peace treaty (locked behind tech progression) or go to war and your borders are open until you close them--but unless you're friends trespassing will hurt the other empire's opinion of you.
Boris Gudenuf
Deity
We are approaching this from different directions. I've been doing a lot of reading lately on the "Indo-European" migrations, Neolithic Cultures, Horizons and Groups, and archeological evidence for early 'technologies'.
Conclusion: Even if we don't include a Neolithic Pre-Era as Humankind does, in 4000 BCE there are NO Civilizations or 'states' in the modern sense. Many of the populations that genetically and linguistically will later form the Civs we know aren't even anywhere near their 'starting locations' yet. None of the Indo-European or Turkic languages exist yet, except in Proto forms.
So, every entity on the map in 4000 BCE is, basically, Unknown. Some of them will become Civs, some City States in game terms, some Tribal Huts or 'Barbarian' camps (although anybody who has read any of my posts will know that I want to combine those two into Settlements that can be hostile, neutral, or friendly).
Realistically, you cannot tell who you are going to be playing or what their Unique Attributes are going to be in 4000 BCE. IF you want to play as Greece, you have to cross most of European Russia, pick up Horse Domestication, Bronze Working, and Chariots, develop your amorphous Proto-Indo-European speech into Greek, get Civics/Social Policies like Heirarchy, Honor Oaths and Comitatus, and make your way into the bottom 10% of he Balkan Peninsula - where you will find Old European farmers have already built settlements at Argos and Athens, among other places.
This would make every game something of a 'blind' or Random Start, but you could get 'starting packages' if you really want to play a particular Civ:
Starting Package marshy river valley with wide grasslands all around, heavy hardwood forests to the north nearby, Resources of Horse, Sheep, Cattle and agriculture with Wheat and Korn (all the Bread grains: wheat, millet, rye, barley, oats). You are going to be Indo-Europeans, but where you go from your semi-pastoral start will define you: anywhere from India to Britain and Greece, Poland, Italy/Rome, Germany in between.
Starting Package fertile river valley surrounded by forests and rain forests, Resources agriculture, Rice, Korn, Cattle - if you work at it, you may become China. With Korn, Water Buffalo and Cattle and the same terrain you can work on your Harappan or Indian Civ - eventually.
The completely Blind Start will be a Hard Sell to the average gamer. He wants to play England, damit, even if at the start of the game there are no English, nor Angels, nor Scots nor Norse nor Normans or any of the other groups that eventually make up England. I think the defining terrain, resources, Civics, Technologies that 'push' someone into becoming English versus Scythian can be defined, but it may take some deft programming to make sure the game gives you the right Package to play what you want to play.
And, of course, the Leader will have to be a later addition to your game: in 4000 BCE there are no named Leaders, either. That actually might be a positive twist: somewhere in your development you will have developed the basic Culture and Technology to be Greek, but in that case you will also pretty certainly have the starting attributes to be Macedonian, so you could also get the choice of Leaders: Pericles, Brasidas, Polycrates, Solon - or Phillip or Alexander.
Evie
Pronounced like Eevee
It's an interesting concept, but I don't think you're selling a game mechanism where players don't get to pick their civilizations. Maybe best to simplify it to a nomadic period where your culture explores its surrounding while forming an identity. Then past a certain point, you get to pick.
Ryansinbela
King
Maybe that could be a special game mode (Random culture)
Civ6 builds a map and then try to fit the civ based on a start bias. Civ7 should be the opposite - take the star bias of the civs selected and build a map with it. Perhaps not the opposite but some melding of the two ways.
The should move outside the barbaric group with pillaging as well. i don't know if thats historical but it strikes me as odd that pillaging gives barbs no benefit,
It depends on which theory of Proto-Indo-European's origin you accept. The most popular model, the steppe hypothesis, has Proto-Indo-European being spoken in 4000 BC on the Pontic Steppe--but the also popular Anatolian hypothesis has Proto-Indo-European being spoken in Anatolia around 8000 BC and moving to the steppe later (meaning an early form of Anatolian is being spoken in Anatolia in 4000 BC).
Alexander's Hetaroi
Deity
I'd honestly wouldn't mind it if you pick your civilization/leader first like normally and still have a nomadic period where you wander around gathering food and discovering agriculture/urban settlement.
Such as you pick the English and it would be beneficial if you wandered around and found the coast in order to build your unique district, or Egypt finding a river in the middle of a desert etc.
Boris Gudenuf
Deity
David Anthony's The Horse, the Wheel and Language makes, I think, a compelling argument for the Pontic Steppe hypothesis, since he was involved in some of the archeological work in the region and thus was able to use both paleolinguistic and archeological evidence to back up the Steppe Theory.
Also, it is now pretty conclusive that Anatolian immigrants into the Balkans and the Danube Valley (see Jean Mango's Ancestral Journeys for the prehistorical immigrations into Europe) after about 6200 BCE spread cattle and sheep domestication and agricultural techniques into southeastern Europe, but there is no sign that they brought anything resembling an Indo-European language with them. Now, this could mean that Anatolian Proto-Indo-European was only present in eastern Anatolia, but I think that argument is stretching a bit.
In any case, while Proto IE was present by 4000 BCE, none of the languages actually attached to any historical Civ were present yet, nor were most if any of the cultural/civic attributes of those cultures present yet (as far as we can tell - 'culture' doesn't leave much in the way of archeological direct evidence). In 4000 BCE, wherever they started from, the Indo-European languages were still Proto or still major branches: no one could be said to speak Latin or German, they spoke Italic or Germanic Indo-European 'branches' and were still several thousand years away from anything understood by a modern language speaker in either Rome, Italy, or Germany.
Exactly. I think most gamers want to be able to play 'Germany' from the start, and not wander into it later. On the other hand, a wandering Neolithic followed by a Civ choice is exactly the mechanism that Humankind is using, and I think it vastly shortchanges the Neolithic. Basically, you can't start a city until the first (Ancient) Era when you have selected a Faction to play, and there is only minimal technological progress before that (some extra Science Points towards your first Tech is all, at least so far as has been revealed). Given the amount of settlement/city forming, techological progress and civic/cultural construction that took place in the Neolithic, the lack of any of that in the game makes me wonder why they bother with a Neolithic Start.
What Humankind does get right is that during the Neolithic there are really only 'markers' leading towards a later Civ, but not really the Civ itself: a Steppe culture (and there are dozens identified archeologically from pre-4000 BCE to 1000 BCE) can start in 4000 BCE with cattle, sheep and horse domestication (for food, not necessarily anything else) and agriculture and a semi-pastoral existance, but whether from that start they become Vedic Indian, Mitanni, Greek, Roman, Celtic, Germans, or stay put and after much trial and tribulation become Russian pretty much depends on post-4000 BCE Events, what they do and what is done to them.
That will be a Hard Sell, I think, unless the game includes some specific things that the gamer can start doing from the Start of Game to 'push' the choice of Civs in the direction he/she wants to go.
Lonecat Nekophrodite
Emperor
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2019
- Messages
- 1,848
There are graphical representations of 'races' as well.
So how should game begins? picking 'starting home continents' and 'ethnicity'
And a civilization will be determined by neutral players with certain cultures that player came in contact with. In the same beginning, if player with Proto-indoeuropean speech, developed horse domestication, bronze working, chariots but went farther east, will they become Scythian? Indian? Turks? or else?
In the same token if player begins in a large isle, gets bronze, and conquered an entire isle, is it possible that they can become Japanese, British, Polynesian? or what else should determine their civs?
Ryansinbela
King
In my doc I mention for origins for all Civs which is based off this Humankind spreadsheet
(excluding Postcolonial due to concept’s nature)
(excluding Postcolonial due to concept’s nature)
Oh, I agree. The clear majority of the evidence points to the Steppe Hypothesis, but the Anatolian Hypothesis still has enough scholarly supporters not to be in crackpot territory.
Given they're attested in writing a few hundred years later, I think we can safely assume someone was speaking something that was recognizably Egyptian and Sumerian. The Egyptian-speakers would even be in Egypt. Since the Sumerians were recent arrivals who displaced the native Ubaid culture (who did not speak Sumerian based on non-Sumerian toponyms), there's no telling where they were in 4000 BC, however.
Similar threads
- Poll
