Cultural Great People

[AffineConstant]

We've had Great People for a long while.
There's Generals, Scientists, Prophets, Merchants, Engineers.

But where does Sun Tzu, Martin Luther King Jr., Voltaire, fit in? A new category: Cultural greats! Emmeline Pankhurst born in the year 0001 CE in Ankara, Alexander Hamilton born in the year 1995 in Kyoto, Karl Marx discovers Fascism in 1800 in Beijing. The list goes on, but it seem obvious. Who else would fit on this list, people that moved cultural policy stuff type along/etc.?

 

[Evie]

I'm not against the idea of a great leader focused on social/political progress, but claiming there is no cultural great leader is just wrong - that's what great artists are. (writer, artist, musician).

Also , Sun Tzu already fit in the game as a great general. Which is much more appropriate for him than great philosopher or whatever

 

[AffineConstant]

I'm not against the idea of a great leader focused on social/political progress, but claiming there is no cultural great leader is just wrong - that's what great artists are. (writer, artist, musician).

Also , Sun Tzu already fit in the game as a great general. Which is much more appropriate for him than great philosopher or whatever

Sun Tzu is far more known for The Art of War than for any great battle he won, in fact he might not have existed so having him as anything other than a "discovers next military civic when used" is silly. And I guess I misnamed this, but the idea is very obviously not a crossover with great artists at all. Culture also works towards civics obviously, so maybe "Civics Great People" if anyone really wants to be that pedantic about it.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Sun Tzu is far more known for The Art of War than for any great battle he won, in fact he might not have existed so having him as anything other than a "discovers next military civic when used" is silly. And I guess I misnamed this, but the idea is very obviously not a crossover with great artists at all. Culture also works towards civics obviously, so maybe "Civics Great People" if anyone really wants to be that pedantic about it.

Well Sun Tzu does create "The Art of War" great work of writing, even as a Great General so he's fine where he is.
I do think there could be room for a Great Philosopher category like @Evie mentioned, but I don't think Sun Tzu fits in that category.

 

[Evie]

If Sun Tzu existed, he was a general, and the book he wrote was a book about how to wage war (so, a Great General thing to do). If he didn't exist he shouldn't be in the game. Either way, he really doesn't fit as an example of a new great person type.

More broadly, personally I'm of the opinion that the half-arsed attempt to split the research tree in two (civics-humanities and science-STEM) needs to end. It was poorly thought out, and imposed without thinking ithrough how it would interact with the game's preexisting assumption (such as libraries-universities = research and theaters-arts =- culture, with the result that libraries and universities, famous cornerstone of scholarly research in philosophy and political thoughts, grant absolutely no bonus to those things, while *theaters* are where those things are developed insteadl.

So if you remove the silly tech tree split and bring civis and techs back on the same tech tree, then you can just rename Great Scientists Great Scholars and have that category cover both civics and science research.

But if you don't, yes, having Great People who are focused on civics would be good.

 

[Henri Christophe]

Sun Tzu can be a great general and also a great writer! I don't see problem on that.
Now have the mechanic of appear the books of the writer when you adquire one, so. It can have the both ability when you adquire Sun Tzu.


But, I miss some great peoples of Brazil in this game, as Santos Dumont who invented the air plane can appear as a great engineer and also Duque de Caxias, he was a great general of Brazilian Imperial time.

 

[reddishrecue]

What about founding fathers? Among the founding of a technology in the Renaissance era such as democracy where you get to have more great people in this case fathers that improve the civilization in a way during that era such as city walls in every city if hernando cortez founding father was born. This is a primitive idea but it could have improvements if it's worked around it. Nations favor different types of 'independent ' policies that favor them or not.. i.e. native rights for the Cree or monarchy for the Dutch. A later independent policy on its own where fathers also help improve points towards policies in a independent tree.
Just a suggestion. There could also be an extension to the space program after alpha likecwhat happened in beyond the earth. If civilization could make a huge expansion with space and independents that would be huge.

 

[Patine]

as Santos Dumont who invented the air plane

The first line of Santos Dumont's Wikipedia article:

"Alberto Santos-Dumont (Palmira, 20 July 1873 — Guarujá, 23 July 1932) was a Brazilian aeronaut, sportsman, inventor,[1][2] and one of the few people to have contributed significantly to the early development of both lighter-than-air and heavier-than-air aircraft."

The part I bolded (his full birth name is bolded by the Wikipedia formatting, the other bolded part is mine) says the error in the statement I'm quoting. Santos Dumont did NOT, "invent," the air plane as a singular personal achievement. The early days of aeronautics, until WW1, when they aircraft really started to be industrially mass produced in very large numbers, were the joint endeauvours of a bunch of separate, often competitive, cooperative in some case and non-cooperative in others, and egotistical men, and a few women, who hashed out how to something made of heavier-than-air material with a human pilot and for balloon for loft off the ground and into controlled flight. No one person, "invented," the air plane, by any reckoning. Santos Dumont, as well as someone from Connecticut and someone from France (whose names I'd have to reference again) claimed they beat the Wright Brothers into functional flight, but even so, the Wright Brothers are not actually generally crediting with, "inventing,"' the air plane, and were greatly working off over two decades of development, attempts, and trial and error by many around the world.

 

[Henri Christophe]

The first line of Santos Dumont's Wikipedia article:

"Alberto Santos-Dumont (Palmira, 20 July 1873 — Guarujá, 23 July 1932) was a Brazilian aeronaut, sportsman, inventor,[1][2] and one of the few people to have contributed significantly to the early development of both lighter-than-air and heavier-than-air aircraft."

The part I bolded (his full birth name is bolded by the Wikipedia formatting, the other bolded part is mine) says the error in the statement I'm quoting. Santos Dumont did NOT, "invent," the air plane as a singular personal achievement. The early days of aeronautics, until WW1, when they aircraft really started to be industrially mass produced in very large numbers, were the joint endeauvours of a bunch of separate, often competitive, cooperative in some case and non-cooperative in others, and egotistical men, and a few women, who hashed out how to something made of heavier-than-air material with a human pilot and for balloon for loft off the ground and into controlled flight. No one person, "invented," the air plane, by any reckoning. Santos Dumont, as well as someone from Connecticut and someone from France (whose names I'd have to reference again) claimed they beat the Wright Brothers into functional flight, but even so, the Wright Brothers are not actually generally crediting with, "inventing,"' the air plane, and were greatly working off over two decades of development, attempts, and trial and error by many around the world.

The Wright Brothers needed a kind of a catapult to make his airplane to fly, Santos Dumont's Airplane fly with a motor. And the way is teached in Brazil, he is the inventor of Airplane yes. He make alone the 14 bis, an airplane show in the image bellow.

 

[Evie]

They were both engine powered, the Wright needed a catapult to achieve *takeoff* acceleration, but it was the engine that then powered the plane for the actual flight.

If having your takeoff assisted by a catapult means you're not an aircraft, then the average American aircraft carriers doesn't actually carry aircrafts, since they use catapults for take-off, to ensure the plane achieve sufficent take off speed in limited space.

I agree with Patine: the development of aircraft was a team effort made by many brave people, and while Santos-Dumont is A founding father of heavier than air flight, he's not its sole inventor, except in nationalistic claptrap.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I agree with Patine: the development of aircraft was a team effort made by many brave people, and while Santos-Dumont is A founding father of heavier than air flight, he's not its sole inventor, except in nationalistic claptrap.

Give one of the Wright bros. and Santos-Dumont the ability to give a Eureka for Flight. So as a compromise they both contribute to the technology.

 

[Henri Christophe]

I agree with Patine: the development of aircraft was a team effort made by many brave people, and while Santos-Dumont is A founding father of heavier than air flight, he's not its sole inventor, except in nationalistic claptrap.

Of course they used the work of a lot of people to achieve the airplane. Even Leonardo da Vinci scratch about airplanes. But the first to achieve the airplane able to fly (without catapults) was Santos Dumont.
And the point of catapults is, the "airplane" indeed plane in the air, but can't rise again in the fly.

Give one of the Wright bros. and Santos-Dumont the ability to give a Eureka for Flight. So as a compromise they both contribute to the technology.

I'm cool with this solution, I just want to see Santos Dumont as a great engineer in the game, I don't matter if it has also the Wright bros... despite their bros airplane have it's problem, it was indeed before Santos Dumont's airplane.

 

[Galvatron]

I've thought about this a bit, and I think the answer is that great writers should be the cultural great scientist.

 

[BuchiTaton]

If Sun Tzu existed, he was a general, and the book he wrote was a book about how to wage war (so, a Great General thing to do). If he didn't exist he shouldn't be in the game. Either way, he really doesn't fit as an example of a new great person type.

More broadly, personally I'm of the opinion that the half-arsed attempt to split the research tree in two (civics-humanities and science-STEM) needs to end. It was poorly thought out, and imposed without thinking ithrough how it would interact with the game's preexisting assumption (such as libraries-universities = research and theaters-arts =- culture, with the result that libraries and universities, famous cornerstone of scholarly research in philosophy and political thoughts, grant absolutely no bonus to those things, while *theaters* are where those things are developed insteadl.

So if you remove the silly tech tree split and bring civis and techs back on the same tech tree, then you can just rename Great Scientists Great Scholars and have that category cover both civics and science research.

But if you don't, yes, having Great People who are focused on civics would be good.

The issue here is that these come from the whole idea of have different kind of victories. Each with their own yields, districts, units, mechanics, upgrades, etc.
Is true that Universities without culture is weir but there are also that Temples/Monasteries and Palaces (places of early development of science* and culture) lack those aspects.

I am for a more complex relation of elements to achive a general "Control" victory instead of separated victories with their own conditions. But the franchise formula seems to be to keep clear unique paths, even the introduction of districts and the different kind of artistic great peoples and works point to it.

To be honest I would keep the whole idea of Research different Technologies from a Tree as a unique element of Science. While the Ideologies (replacement of Civics+Beliefs) would come from Events (many triggered by the needs of your Population their Heritage, Religion and Profession), all these as elements related to achive Diplomatic Victory.

These Ideologies would be about decisions for a more narrative gameplay, and less linear way to build your society. Like Policy Cards you can chose some of them but in a more coherent and exclusive way than CIV6's. This way we avoid awful deterministic names like "Mercenaries" as a medieval invention The changes of your religion and goverment comes from real in-game development of your society, giving real weight to your population their characteristics and necessities. So less passive heaping of tons of meaninless civics and more significative and powerfull justified ideological revolutions. Gain a Great Philosopher from a Temple or University would be a valuable figure that provide you some free ideologies to implement.
The Diplomatic Victory is related to these ideologies since diplomacy should represent a "soft" way to impose you and your ideologic models (religion/government/ecomony). Force your way of life in others would make easier to reach agreements.

Like we can see in these model Religion is no more their own victory, but is still relevant for Diplomacy and also Culture, since the later is still generated in great amount from Holy Sites, their pilgrims (religious tourism) and their related Ideologies. Wonders, Great Artists and the exhibitions of their Great Works already is related to Tourism. But there is also the chance to use Prestigious Goods like Textiles, Ceramics, Cuisine, Movies, Videogames, Cars, etc (in a Coorporation like way). as a way to export your culture to other nations. So now Culture is more related to Trade, Amenities and Production of resources in Workshops and Factories. Even more, some unique Prestigious Goods could be exclusive to specific City States.

 

[Evie]

I agree that having victory conditions for every single game feature is just bad overall but I think we disagree over what victory should be.

To me, victory should means, first and foremost, that you've ended (or "escaped") the game - you've broken one of the fundamental parameters of the game, and it cannot meaningfully continue. With conquest, that parameter is that the game is a competition between players - which is broken once only one player remains. With Space, that parameter is that the game is set on a board representing one planet, which is broken once your empire settles other planets.

If you don't escape the game, then it ends after a certain predetermined number of turns and victory is measured by points.

I believe that if ideologies/civics become less of a research tree, and more of a nation-building system (ala Humankind or Civ V) where they represent your adoption of those ideas, then there should be corresponding social, political and phiilosophical research, in the "tech" tree, that is part of unlocking those ideologies and making them available for adoption. Separating philosophical (and adjacent) research from scientific is a grossly ahistorical aberration that exists almost purely because of the pro-STEM, anti-humanities narrative of recent years.

 

[BuchiTaton]

To me, victory should means, first and foremost, that you've ended (or "escaped") the game - you've broken one of the fundamental parameters of the game, and it cannot meaningfully continue.

Under this principle get conquered also ended (escaped) you from game. Just saying...

I believe that if ideologies/civics become less of a research tree, and more of a nation-building system (ala Humankind or Civ V) where they represent your adoption of those ideas, then there should be corresponding social, political and phiilosophical research, in the "tech" tree, that is part of unlocking those ideologies and making them available for adoption. Separating philosophical (and adjacent) research from scientific is a grossly ahistorical aberration that exists almost purely because of the pro-STEM, anti-humanities narrative of recent years.

The Tech Tree itself dont meets its own definition considering that include many things that are not technologies but whole disciplines. A classical Celestial Navigation "tech" showing a Sextant is awful when Polynesians already have Celestial Navigation long before, proper Astrolabe or Sextant would fit better. Even in design early eras could have less focused research and techs while later eras would have proper scientific policies, research institutions and a lot of technologies. So the tech tree (like a real tree) start with few branches that expands and intertwine way more at the end (like real history).

On the contrary if we use the also many awful names of in-game Civic Tree it would ends turned around, since civics like "Games and Recreation", "Recorded History", "Military Training", "Civil Service", etc. Were obviously a thing long before their in game asigned Era. Have a system that allows Tlingit civ to pick "Conservation" ideology since early game is better than one that determine that is a western invention of the Modern Era. Also Technologies are about accumulate and improve them, while Ideologies can double on the element of choose only some, so it actually make sense that your culture (goverment, reglion, society, etc.) is different from others instead of just stack the same bunch that the others civs.

Then there is the relation of Civics and Arts as part of in-game Culture, I mean... How many songs and pictures Karl Marx spent in The Communist Manifesto
Ideologies as their own thing with their own mechanics worth more than be part of either a second or the same passive Tech Tree, also be the result of art and a way to achieve more tourism.

By the way I dont know what "anti-humanities" are you talking about. In any case the separation in game is product of the necessitiy to characterize and abstract different ways to achieve Science and Cultural victories.

 

[Zaarin]

By the way I dont know what "anti-humanities" are you talking about.

In the US at least, there has developed a strong cultural bias that regards careers and degrees in tech, engineering, medicine, and science as intrinsically more valuable than those related to history, literature, philosophy, and "the liberal arts." The one exception being law because of course it is.

 

[BuchiTaton]

In the US at least, there has developed a strong cultural bias that regards careers and degrees in tech, engineering, medicine, and science as intrinsically more valuable than those related to history, literature, philosophy, and "the liberal arts." The one exception being law because of course it is.

Inside the universities themselves or the average people?

Maybe this is more an issue in developed countries, as an indirect result of the higer scholarship and less obvious aplication on the private sector. On in-development countries social sciences and the non-applied natural sciences are still growing and mostly subsidized by governments (both stuying and jobs).

 

[InsidiousMage]

Inside the universities themselves or the average people?

Both. Universities are cutting back on their humanities programs and people generally see non-tech/science educations as less valuable because of the increased cultural influence of Silicon Valley over the past two decades.

 

[Evie]

The idea of a tech tree that is purely scientific is profoundly horrendous to me and a sterling example of recentist (and, to a degree, western) bias - the idea of scientific and technological progress as its own exclusive field entirely separate from other forms of scholarly endeavour is incredibly recent even in the west. As late as the Enlightementment the distinction between a philosopher and a scientist was an incredibly blurry line - Newton wrote about theology as much as about mathematics and Franklin experimented with electricity as much as with new systems of government, and they are not unusual about any of this.

Retroactively applying something we've only had in the west for two centuries and for even less time elsewhere in the world to all of human history is daft. And it doesn'T fix the problem of techs being in the wrong time period for *some* civs, which is an inherent problem of tech trees, regardless of if they,re science-only or not.

(And being eliminated is not escaping the game, it's being kicked out of it , therefore not a win condition. More generally, the concept is that the game should only end if a civilization "breaks" the fundamental parameters of the game (competition between multiple civs, at least one of which is human, on a board representing one planet, for a specified number of turns) - it shouldn'T end because someone has accumulated arbitrary amounts of points of any kind.)