Customizable Civs

[NinjaOverSurge]

This is an idea for a mod as it probably won't fit the vanilla game.

I just think it would be fun to be able to make your own civilization choosing from the traits of other civs. Of course this could get ridiculously overpowered which is why this is better as a mod and just for fun.

I know next to nothing about modding and stuff but if someone makes a mod of this you bet I'm playing it.

 

[Manifold]

First, the possibility to rename/Change the name of the played Civ and leader is a must.

Second, some construction kit for the LUA, UA, UU, UB...of the played Civ and leader would be great.
Every existing unique ability should get a point value.
Depending on the difficulty, the player can spend a certain amount of points on unique abilities.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

I've long thought it would be nice to have an option of playing a "In-Game Produced" Civ. That is, you'd start with NO Uniques, or maybe one unique based on your starting position - better mobility in jungles because your first city is in the middle of a jungle, for instance.

Then, based on how your Civ develops, it would develop Unique Abilities, Units, Improvements, Buildings, etc. based on how the game goes.
First four cities are all on or near the coast = start developing 'naval' Uniques and possibly end up playing England or Norway
First cities are on plains/grassland with lots of horses = start developing early horsemen and end up playing as Scythia
Spend 75 out of the first 100 turns of the game at War = you Will get some kind of Military Unique Unit/Trait/Ability.

Let's face it, except for Egypt and Sumer, none of the Civilizations we play existed anywhere near 4000 BCE - even the first recognizable Chinese Dynasties are almost 2000 years later, and Civs like Rome don't become 'Roman' until over 3000 years into the game.

Start playing with a Tribal name and decide later if you are going to be Roman or French. And maybe have the option of successive changing your Civ so that your Tribe becomes Gauls or Celts with one set of Uniques and 100 - 150 turns or so later become French with another set of Uniques.

 

[Amrunril]

I don't feel strongly about switching unique units and infrastructure, but I do think it should be possible to switch leaders between civs. Distinguishing civ abilities from leader abilities without providing this option seems like a waste, and enabling it would provide a virtually limitless number of factions, some of them with very interesting synergies (like Qin Shi Huang of France, Montezuma of England or Hojo Tokimune of Germany). Presumably this would be an advanced setup option (as it was in Civ IV, I believe), since there would be obvious balance issues.

 

[Manifold]

I've long thought it would be nice to have an option of playing a "In-Game Produced" Civ. That is, you'd start with NO Uniques, or maybe one unique based on your starting position - better mobility in jungles because your first city is in the middle of a jungle, for instance.

Then, based on how your Civ develops, it would develop Unique Abilities, Units, Improvements, Buildings, etc. based on how the game goes.
First four cities are all on or near the coast = start developing 'naval' Uniques and possibly end up playing England or Norway
First cities are on plains/grassland with lots of horses = start developing early horsemen and end up playing as Scythia
Spend 75 out of the first 100 turns of the game at War = you Will get some kind of Military Unique Unit/Trait/Ability.

I think it's better to make a decision at the start of the game but your idea could be work like the Governmental Legacy Bonuses or Pantheon in some way.

Let's face it, except for Egypt and Sumer, none of the Civilizations we play existed anywhere near 4000 BCE - even the first recognizable Chinese Dynasties are almost 2000 years later, and Civs like Rome don't become 'Roman' until over 3000 years into the game.

Did you forgot the Greece because they represent the Minoan Civilization with the city names

Start playing with a Tribal name and decide later if you are going to be Roman or French. And maybe have the option of successive changing your Civ so that your Tribe becomes Gauls or Celts with one set of Uniques and 100 - 150 turns or so later become French with another set of Uniques.

This means that every Civ must get age dependent Abilities. The problem is, not all Civs exist over all the time. What modern representation should the Mongols get if they rule the world?

..., but I do think it should be possible to switch leaders between civs. Distinguishing civ abilities from leader abilities without providing this option seems like a waste, and enabling it would provide a virtually limitless number of factions, some of them with very interesting synergies (like Qin Shi Huang of France, Montezuma of England or Hojo Tokimune of Germany). Presumably this would be an advanced setup option (as it was in Civ IV, I believe), since there would be obvious balance issues.

Unfortunately, the leaders are not balanced.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

I think it's better to make a decision at the start of the game but your idea could be work like the Governmental Legacy Bonuses or Pantheon in some way.

Depending on how you define 'start of the game' we're actually pretty close: I'd have the decision point come after you see your starting position, because the terrain and situation of that position should have a Big Effect on that decision, and even what decision can be made. I would also make the resulting decisions perhaps more 'wide ranging' than others would: I'd like to see a range of Starting Technologies instead of one (Agriculture) only. BUT if there ain't a domesticable animal in sight, Animal Husbandry is not a legitimate choice for a Starting Tech.

Did you forgot the Greece because they represent the Minoan Civilization with the city names

After blowing a year plus on a Classical Studies advanced degree program, I should hope not! While Crete had some of the rudiments of civilization, including one of the oldest stone paved roads known anywhere, the earliest elements of 'civilization' in relatively dense 'city' - type settlements and hieroglyphic-style writing don't show up until around 2000 BCE - 2000 years after the nominal Start of the Game. The Greeks didn't become recognizably 'Greek' until they migrated into Greece some time after that: the 'Dorian' Invasions. In fact, I would argue that 'Minoan' Crete was not a Greek Civilization of any kind: they didn't share language or religion, there are indications of a very strong Matriarchal component to Cretan society absent in Greece, and even the Cretan Palace Architecture has more affinities with Asia Minor than anything on 'mainland' Greece - compare the floor plans of Cretan Knossus and Phaistos with Beyce Sultan in southwestern Turkey, and you'd swear the same architect initialed all three sets of plans!
After the Mycenean Greeks took over the island, of course, Crete was 'integrated' into the Greek World so that 500 or so years later when the Iliad was being composed they are listed as part of the Greek contingents.

I means that every Civ must get age dependent Abilities. The problem is, not all Civs exist over all the time. What modern representation should the Mongols get if they rule the world?

That would depend on the Game Events and Decisions that got them there. Historically, one set of Mongols ruled China and became a Chinese Dynasty, another set became the Golden Horde stamping down the Russian city states - and could have wound up ruling central Russia, had they played their cards better - yet other groups morphed into the Timurids and Mughals, ruling large parts of Asia Minor and India, respectively. So I would argue that there are "Nine and Twenty Ways of constructing Tribal Lays, and each and every one of them is Right!" ( - and thanks for giving me a chance to quote Kipling, always a Plus).

What I would like to see in the game is a Chance to see what kind of Mongol Civilization I could build that could not only conquer the World (God Knows they came close enough to that historically) but also rule it for any length of time - see the Yuan, Golden Horde, Timurids and Mughals above, all temporary, all long-gone, for examples of how they failed to maintain initial conquests.

What frustrates me as much as anything in the game is that I start 6000+ years ago with a civilization with certain Inalienable Attributes which have little or no bearing on where I start from and with what resources, and WHICH NEVER CHANGE no matter what happens, either to them or by them. It produces, for me, extremely One Dimensional games. It also produces extremely One Dimensional Civilizations, which is why we have to argue about Multiple Leaders to try to introduce some of the variety that any civilization develops the longer it hangs around, and why the Mod Files are full of 'alternative' Civilizations to those in the game, because Historically, almost any civilization that lasts more than a couple of hundred years changes, mutates, and morphs into something different, and the game now simply doesn't allow for that.

 

[Manifold]

Depending on how you define 'start of the game' we're actually pretty close: I'd have the decision point come after you see your starting position, because the terrain and situation of that position should have a Big Effect on that decision, and even what decision can be made. I would also make the resulting decisions perhaps more 'wide ranging' than others would: I'd like to see a range of Starting Technologies instead of one (Agriculture) only. BUT if there ain't a domesticable animal in sight, Animal Husbandry is not a legitimate choice for a Starting Tech.

I understand what you are meaning. You want a totally open game and want to try the best strategy at the moment to win.
I like the choice at the start and then look what I can do best with it.
But as I said before a skill system for the Civ ala Civ5 would be very cool.

After blowing a year plus on a Classical Studies advanced degree program, I should hope not! While Crete had some of the rudiments of civilization, including one of the oldest stone paved roads known anywhere, the earliest elements of 'civilization' in relatively dense 'city' - type settlements and hieroglyphic-style writing don't show up until around 2000 BCE - 2000 years after the nominal Start of the Game. The Greeks didn't become recognizably 'Greek' until they migrated into Greece some time after that: the 'Dorian' Invasions. In fact, I would argue that 'Minoan' Crete was not a Greek Civilization of any kind: they didn't share language or religion, there are indications of a very strong Matriarchal component to Cretan society absent in Greece, and even the Cretan Palace Architecture has more affinities with Asia Minor than anything on 'mainland' Greece - compare the floor plans of Cretan Knossus and Phaistos with Beyce Sultan in southwestern Turkey, and you'd swear the same architect initialed all three sets of plans!
After the Mycenean Greeks took over the island, of course, Crete was 'integrated' into the Greek World so that 500 or so years later when the Iliad was being composed they are listed as part of the Greek contingents.

In some way the Greeks are the successors of the Minoans of course.

The Mycenaean adopt a lot from the Minoans not even the Religion. Zeus the thunder god came from Crete.
After the Conquest of Crete by the Mycenaeans the palace culture had a reflowering. Minos himself is one of most important and most prominent persons in Greek myths. And, unlike the other main characters, as innocent as a lamb.
That would not be done if the Mycenaean just conquered and destroyed the Minoans (like in America later).
Even when the Mycenaean and the Minoan were lingual and in ethnicity different, Crete was part of the same area named Greece. The island is not that far from the mainland away. There is no doubt there was a steady exchange at least to robbery, but also trade and copy.

The Minoan Civilization started nearly at the same time like the Old Kingdom in Egypt.

But I also want a separate Minoan Civ. And what I wrote and you commented was with an smily

That would depend on the Game Events and Decisions that got them there. Historically, one set of Mongols ruled China and became a Chinese Dynasty, another set became the Golden Horde stamping down the Russian city states - and could have wound up ruling central Russia, had they played their cards better - yet other groups morphed into the Timurids and Mughals, ruling large parts of Asia Minor and India, respectively. So I would argue that there are "Nine and Twenty Ways of constructing Tribal Lays, and each and every one of them is Right!" ( - and thanks for giving me a chance to quote Kipling, always a Plus).

What I would like to see in the game is a Chance to see what kind of Mongol Civilization I could build that could not only conquer the World (God Knows they came close enough to that historically) but also rule it for any length of time - see the Yuan, Golden Horde, Timurids and Mughals above, all temporary, all long-gone, for examples of how they failed to maintain initial conquests.

What frustrates me as much as anything in the game is that I start 6000+ years ago with a civilization with certain Inalienable Attributes which have little or no bearing on where I start from and with what resources, and WHICH NEVER CHANGE no matter what happens, either to them or by them. It produces, for me, extremely One Dimensional games. It also produces extremely One Dimensional Civilizations, which is why we have to argue about Multiple Leaders to try to introduce some of the variety that any civilization develops the longer it hangs around, and why the Mod Files are full of 'alternative' Civilizations to those in the game, because Historically, almost any civilization that lasts more than a couple of hundred years changes, mutates, and morphs into something different, and the game now simply doesn't allow for that.

This would be very cool. For this we need hundreds of Civs. I do not mind

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

I In some way the Greeks are the successors of the Minoans of course.

The Mycenaean adopt a lot from the Minoans not even the Religion. Zeus the thunder god came from Crete.
After the Conquest of Crete by the Mycenaeans the palace culture had a reflowering. Minos himself is one of most important and most prominent persons in Greek myths. And, unlike the other main characters, as innocent as a lamb.
That would not be done if the Mycenaean just conquered and destroyed the Minoans (like in America later).
Even when the Mycenaean and the Minoan were lingual and in ethnicity different, Crete was part of the same area named Greece. The island is not that far from the mainland away. There is no doubt there was a steady exchange at least to robbery, but also trade and copy.

The Minoan Civilization started nearly at the same time like the Old Kingdom in Egypt.

But I also want a separate Minoan Civ. And what I wrote and you commented was with an smily

I would rather characterize it that the Minoan Settlements started (at least the archeological evidence) about the same time as the Egyptian Old Kingdom, but I'm not so sure you can call it a Civilization that early. As I said, they had some of it: decorated pottery, trade in metals (tin, copper, gold for sure) with both mainland Europe (Greece) and Asia Minor/Egypt, but there is no sign of Palaces or even Big Houses, just small settlements. The Tholos Graves don't even show signs of being for Special People, they seem to be tribal or clan structures.
In game terms, you have no Capital, no Palace built yet - Goodie Huts/Barbarian Camps with Trade.
The first certain sign of Civilization, the start of the Proto-Palace Culture (using Dr Platon's chronology) dates from the Egyptian Middle kingdom, about 2000 - 1900 BCE.

Quibbles and interpretations, because we're not trying to build an Archeologically Perfect Game here!

The point, relating back to the OP, is that almost every civ developed during the game period Post 4000 BCE, and the Civs in the game need to be capable of such development, not stamped in Stone (or Code) from the start of the game.

For this we need hundreds of Civs. I do not mind

There is a Mod for Civ V that includes 125 'extra' Uniques for the in-game Civilizations - buildings, units, Improvements, etc. If instead of making all those Uniques Civilization-Specific, you made them In-Game Situation Specific, I think you'd be on the way to what I'm looking for. Not 100s of Civilizations, but dozens of ways to possibly play any or each Civilization.
Mix and Match, Trade Out Uniques that no longer apply for New Ones that do - That, I think, would be Customizable Civilizations

 

[Manifold]

As my book say the Minoan Civilization starts 2600 BC and the Old Kingdom 2700 BC, but this is not really important here.

I also like the idea of developing Civ. But I also like too choose a path and some boni at the start. The choice of the Civ at the beginning is always a highlight especially when the game/expansion is new. The combination of both would be great. Why not expand the (Governmental Legacy) Bonuses to other aspects of the game like rewards for survived random major events, seafaring culture, hilltribe, ...

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

As my book say the Minoan Civilization starts 2600 BC and the Old Kingdom 2700 BC, but this is not really important here.

I also like the idea of developing Civ. But I also like too choose a path and some boni at the start. The choice of the Civ at the beginning is always a highlight especially when the game/expansion is new. The combination of both would be great. Why not expand the (Governmental Legacy) Bonuses to other aspects of the game like rewards for survived random major events, seafaring culture, hilltribe, ...

Then I think we're down to arguing how much should be part of the Starting Decisions and how much to develop later, if I read you right.

Here are a couple of ideas:
1. The Starting Point (Pre-Game) for a Civilization will not necessarily be a bunch of specific Bonuses, but, perhaps, a selection of Bonus(es) based on Starting Position AND some Civ Specific Bonus(es) based on, for want of a better term, "The Civilization's Preferences." These would NOT be based, as so many now are, on the historical 'chance' of the Civ's development.

For instance, to take England as a Civ most of us are pretty familiar with, there would be NO built in Starting bonus or preference relating to the sea, ships, or trading. None of that developed historically until the Medieval Era in game terms, so are NOT appropriate as Starting Bias/Bonus for the Civ. BUT it might have a Starting Bias (a built in set of Eurekas, perhaps?) for Civics relating to English tendencies: Code of Laws, Drama and Poetry, Humanism, Suffrage, for example. Based on the Starting Position you might have an "English-Specific" Choice of a Naval Bias or 'Eureka' for Naval (or Colonial) Techs/Civics/Policies.

2. I like the idea of expanding 'Legacy' Bonuses based on In-Game Events - and elegant way of getting to what I've been arguing for. Rather than 'One Time' Eureka - type Triggers, they should be based on On-Going tendencies and actions in your Civ. Having a certain % of cities on the coast, or half or more of your Trade Routes being water/ship-based should get you a Legacy towards Naval or Colonial actions, for a simple example (Thus 'developing' the English Naval Tradition After 4000 BCE, as happened in reality). Even some of these might be 'Civ-Specific', but shouldn't be so strong that they 'drag' you into ridiculous actions with your Civilization. If your starting position as Russia is in the middle of a Pangaea Continent in the desert, you are going to have an uphill struggle to turn that into a sea-faring nation, or get a Tundra bias of any kind - as you should. If that desert surrounding and city-positions are all flat, you may still develop a 'Mounted Bias' that will (eventually) get you your Cossacks, and from the desert a Religious Bonus/Bias is certainly possible (historically, almost inevitable), but you should not be 'forced' into dragging a settler across the map looking for a Tundra city site because of some 'Built in" Bias/Bonus that just doesn't apply in your game.