Civ under evolution

[mastertyguy]

I just thought about this. I'm not sureif it is a good idea, but what about this : your civ changes name during the game. exemple ; Rome becomes Italy, or Aztec Mexico, etc. I don't what it would do, but anyway. Maybe United States would starts as 13 colonies, or Union.

 

[dh_epic]

It's been suggested before.

And inevitably, someone comes up with an idea where it happens organically, instead of hardwired... in which case, someone suggests a model with civil wars and dark ages and so on... and then someone criticizes it for being too random and taking too much power away from the player... and then someone needs to articulate a model that's not random and that empowers the player...

Sorry, don't mean to be a cynic I think the last time this came up was more like a year ago, so there's probably a bunch of people who haven't heard it yet.

 

[Mewtarthio]

So, what'll America be in the Ancient Age? What'll the Aztecs be in the Modern Age?

 

[CurtSibling]

The idea has always been to build an empire than spans time.

In your game, the Aztec Empire might not fall...And even the Americans might exist in ancient times...

The game is all about 'what-ifs'...The very basis of CIV!

 

[sir_schwick]

I say we dig up the old thread and re-kindle the fire. Might as well this close to release date.

 

[Yuri2356]

I believe I know what thread you have in mind...

 

[Dreadnought]

I started a thread about this a year ago....

every1 hated it

and now that you think about it, I don't like it now

 

[Corvex]

I think that the main problem is that most civilizations don't evolve in such a natural manner from one nation to another. I could see the Han becoming China, Persia becoming Iran, the Celts becoming Ireland or Scotland, the Greeks becoming the Byzantines and maybe, maybe Rome becoming Italy. Beyond that, they make little or no sense except in terms of geographic location.The Iroquois, for example didn't give rise to Canada, and where would the United States come from? Moreover, where would the Sumerians and the Hittites go? Also, some civs kind of 'branch-off' into many different civs.

 

[dh_epic]

Ok, now's the part where I agree with Corvex's complaint... and then I suggest that instead of hardwiring the evolutionary path of each civilization, you create a model that allows each civilization to change/split/turn.

... a model that explains how America came from Britain, how Mexico emerged from the collision of Spain and the Aztecs, and how the Ottoman Empire crumbled leaving fragmented states in its place.

A model flexible enough that all kinds of things could happen in a 6000 year period -- the Ottoman Empire could stay unified. China could crumble into fragments. The Aztecs could colonize Spain, and just when you think the last traces of Spain are eradicated, a new state appears in its place.

 

[Dreadnought]

dh_epic is right. civ is changing history

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

True, but even with changed history, we cannot ignore the fact that history wasn't-and isn't-all growth, expansion and success. Sometimes, extreme success can-and should-result in failure, if you fail to properly consolidate your winnings. Also, often the 'enemy within' should be more of a threat than an outside enemy (like a foreign civ). Though it such failure should be predictable, it should not be completely unavoidable. If anything, it will help to curb the Snowball Effect which often makes the Late-Industrial age on so tedious. Also just remember the famous lines from Yates: 'Things fall apart, the Centre cannot hold. Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world'-a most apt description of history, if ever I heard one!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker

 

[mastertyguy]

dh_epic is right. civ is changing history

civ is not changing history, civ is a new history

 

[Dreadnought]

civ is not changing history, civ is a new history

Not all the time...

 

[mastertyguy]

What I say is that you can have aztecs near china and zulus. Where can you hear about Aztecs an china defeating zulu? not in real life.

 

[Graadiapolistan]

Italy HSOULD ABSOLUTELY NOT Be assosciated with the Roman Empire!!!!!!
Greece, Persia, England, France, The Celts, Spain, Germany etc.. were ALL conquered by Rome- you can't say italy and Roman Empire are even similer because they are not

It would be intersting if the faces changed- but it would be useless and take up memory. I don't think that this idea will work with the game- it will work against it but good idea

 

[Graadiapolistan]

I think that the main problem is that most civilizations don't evolve in such a natural manner from one nation to another. I could see the Han becoming China, Persia becoming Iran, the Celts becoming Ireland or Scotland, the Greeks becoming the Byzantines and maybe, maybe Rome becoming Italy. Beyond that, they make little or no sense except in terms of geographic location.The Iroquois, for example didn't give rise to Canada, and where would the United States come from? Moreover, where would the Sumerians and the Hittites go? Also, some civs kind of 'branch-off' into many different civs.

The only one I could imagen is Han becoming China

The celts originally lived in France area, they have nothing to do with ireland except that they were pushed there by the Romans

Persia and Iran what are you on? They don't even have the same religion or culture?

 

[MeteorPunch]

Maybe instead of saying, "Rome becomes Italy," which is kind of silly, other titles are used. Examples: "The Dutch have become a global commercial power," or, "The Romans have emerged from third-world status, to join the rank of nations."

Obviously I'm not good at this, but it'd be cool if there was about 100 different "Title Types" that your civ could be, as defining the attributes of your empire. These titles would be connected to various attained criteria.

 

[Graadiapolistan]

i like metrorpunch's idea

 

[narmox]

I like it too.

I also liked Call to Power's way of doing things, where cities that had too much unhappiness would start with civil disorders, and if it lasted too long/had too many unhappy citizens, the city would branch off and form a NEW civilization (assuming there weren't 32 civs already), rather than start destroying marketplaces

Imagine my surprise once when I changed to another form of government and forgot to manage my happiness.. the next turn half my empire turned into approximately 3 new nations + some cities going 'independant' (barbarians), if my memory serves correctly...

I've always liked these ideas, and would like to see them in a game as long as it's not always predictable, and as long as it's not always bad for the civilization to split up/branch off/etc. There could be advantages to doing it willingly before the citizens actually revolt on their own, for example.

This discussion has been done to death apparently so I'll end here

 

[Corvex]

The only one I could imagen is Han becoming China

The celts originally lived in France area, they have nothing to do with ireland except that they were pushed there by the Romans

Persia and Iran what are you on? They don't even have the same religion or culture?

Actually, the Celts didn't live exclusively in France, they lived all over Western Europe, including Spain, Portugual, France, Britain and Ireland. The Scots and the Irish are related to the Celts because Scotland and Ireland, unlike most of modern Western Europe (which has been heavily colonized by Germanics) remain predominantly Celtic. Hence, it would make sense for them to be decended from a Celtic root.
As for Persia and Iran: same ethnicity, same geography, (mostly) the same language