Different Civs For Different Ages???

[Dreadnought]

I think for civ4 each civ should become a different civ once an age pasts. For example, the Aztecs, after the Medieval Ages, becomes Mexico, or Iroquios becoming Canada?

Maybe Germany could be Germania during the Prehistoric, then the Holy Roman Empire during the Middle Ages, Prussia during the Industrial Age, and finally Germany during the modern ages.

For leaders, instead of Bismark all the way through the game, Germania could have a tribe leader (don't know much about Germania during Roman times), the Holy Roman Empire could have Barborossa, Prussia could have Bismark, and modern Germany can have Rommel.

Each 'minor Germany' could have a unique unit. Germania could have an axethrower instead of an archer, the Holy Roman Empire could have a Tectonic Knight instead of a knight, Prussia could have a Prussian Heavy infantry instead of a rifleman, and finally Germany could have a panzer.

However, I also think civ4 should be a little different with the tech-tree. You get the tank in modern times, and democracy comes in Industrial. Communism should be in Modern, too.

What do you think?

 

[Loaf Warden]

What do you think?

Not much.

The Aztecs didn't 'become' Mexico through any sort of natural cultural progression. They 'became' Mexico because they were conquered by the Spanish and their civilization was replaced wholesale. The whole point of playing Civ is to build an empire to stand the test of time. To play with history and try to make, say, the Aztec Empire into a mighty nation that resists all attempts at conquest and becomes a modern-age world superpower. Now you're asking that we just throw all that away and say, "Sorry, the real Aztecs didn't last into the modern world, so we're not going to let the Aztecs in the game do that, either. We're going to force them to lose their own identity and take on a Hispanic identity because that's what really happened."

And again with the different rulers over time thing. Why are people so hung up on that? There are few civs that even makes sense for. Germany, okay, I can see the point. China. India. But most of the civs in the game didn't last through all four ages represented. What are you going to do about them? Oh, that's right, you've already told us; ignore their cultural identity and force them to become someone they're not. Force the Aztecs to turn into Mexico. Probably turn Babylon into Iraq (even though they aren't even remotely the same peoples and only through historical circumstances happen to occupy the same geographical area). Probably turn the Zulu into South Africa as well, if you can ignore the enraged outcries about imperalism and racism and apartheid and everything else that would go with such a thing. ("But I was going to say Nelson Mandela should be the ruler!" Right. Like that changes anything.)

I absolutely oppose this idea, just as I have every time it's come up before. The span of the game is far too vast to make anything like this even remotely feasible. You want different rulers and different nations, play some scenarios. There's no reason to bastardize the epic game out of a misplaced loyalty to a false sense of 'historical accuracy'.

 

[sealman]

Loaf:

that was a bit harsh, but I do happen to agree with you.

 

[Dreadnought]

that's right, you've already told us; ignore their cultural identity and force them to become someone they're not. Force the Aztecs to turn into Mexico.

Many of the Mexican people are Aztecs (or desended from some)

Look at the idea not the examples!

 

[gazdeluxe11]

he is looking at the idea. The whole point of Civ is that you can play the Romans and "build an emprire to stand the test of time". Not have the Romans turn into the Venitians who turn into the Italians. Lame! One of the coolest parts about Civ is starting at the begining of an empire and building through until the end.

Now, if we wanted to have other city-states rise and fall with revolutions and give those time-specific names, and those rising civs time-specific leaders, thats an idea. But just renaming because more tech was discovered? No thanks.

 

[Loaf Warden]

that was a bit harsh, but I do happen to agree with you.

Yeah, looking back on it, it probably was. I didn't mean it to be. I promise I was 'saying' everything with a neutral 'tone of voice'.

Many of the Mexican people are Aztecs (or desended from some)

I'm aware of that. All that means is that the Spanish didn't commit genocide against the Aztecs. Mexico still does not qualify as a modern Aztec nation. Mexico is a Hispanic nation of which the Aztecs are a sizeable minority population. Mexico today is not what it would have been if the Aztecs hadn't been conquered, and that is what Civ is about.

Look at the idea not the examples!

I did, but an idea like this cannot be divorced from the examples. Any way you slice it, to make the idea work you're going to need the examples. I looked at the idea and concluded that I, personally, do not happen to think it would be a good thing for a game like Civ. Not a big deal.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Look, what about a compromise?

How about, when you move from one age to another, you have a CHOICE to change your empires name.
So, for instance, your Roman Empire has just recieved the Era Splash Screen for the end of the Classical Age. Your domestic advisor appears asking 'Sire, a new age may require a new title-do you wish to take a new identity into the age to come?' You will then be presented with your empires name in an editing box. If you want, though, you can simply ignore it and continue on!
What I DO agree with, though, is that parts of an empire which break away should get a name consistent with both the culture group it originated from AND the age in which the breakaway occurs (hence the Mexico thing!)

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[Ant509y]

In my view, this can be both a good thing or a bad thing. Granted, I want to see new nations appear in the game, but not too much by the nation's name changing merely to reflect the name... Loaf's points are valid, but a compromise might be good... having a choice to do so might be interesting, as Aussie said.

Anyway, if I have to jump off the fence about it, I'll say no, I don't really want it that much. Though if they added it, I might find it enjoyable. Whoops, still on the fence. x.x

 

[Bast]

I disagree. This is taking historical accuracy too far. We need to draw a line somewhere.

And what about a civilization like Egypt, aside from religious conversions, it has always remained Egypt.

 

[Lennon]

I'm not so fond of this idea either. I agree that one of the whole points of Civ is make a civilization stand the test of time and not crumble into something else. It is also a bit strange that the Americans exist from the start, whereas the Aztecs suddenly become Mexico and the Iroquois become Canada.

And why on the face of God's great earth would Rommel of all people be the leader of modern Germany????

 

[Dreadnought]

Who do you want, Hitler? If they put Hitler the Jews would sew Civ4 so much money that Civ5 would never come out (noooooooo!)

 

[Lennon]

I'm not suggesting Hitler, but he'd be above Rommel in the list (Rommel was only a Field Marshal, not a political figure). Besides, at least Civ-wise, Nazi Germany would fall in under the industrial age anyway, leaving Bismarck the natural choice.

What I'm trying to point out is that Rommel isn't that type of historical person, I suppose you wouldn't be so keen to see David Beckham has the leader of modern England, would you?

 

[Helmling]

I think with the player's Civ, most of us want continuity.

But I would love to see a rise and fall with other nations. In Civ, your rivals either get bigger or smaller. New ones never emerge from the ashes of the old. And once one gets big the only thing that can knock it down is the human player going after it.

That's not exactly how history went...or goes today.

 

[kaoruchan]

But I would love to see a rise and fall with other nations. In Civ, your rivals either get bigger or smaller. New ones never emerge from the ashes of the old. And once one gets big the only thing that can knock it down is the human player going after it.

That's not exactly how history went...or goes today.

I agree. There should be new civs that arise in each era. Civs like China, Egypt, and Rome can all start at the beginning of the game. Then civs like France, The Aztecs and Japan can come in at the begiining of the Medieval Era. Then stragglers America can come in at the Industrial Era.

But i don't know how that would work with technologies from previous eras, and it would leave those civs at an enormous disadvantage if they just started like they normally would at the begginning, especially for the Americans.

 

[Helmling]

I don't care who rises when...I play on random maps, with random opponents and with culturally linked start locations turned off, so I'm not looking to emulate the historical roles of the civs in the game. (Civ just can't do that to my satisfaction, which is why I don't play the conquests.) But I remember using the old capital sack maneuver in Civ2 and creating two civs where there was one. That sort of thing should happen more. Conquered nations reemerge or new ones assert themselves...etc.

 

[masterofdragons]

I agree with Loaf whole-heartedly. It is called civilization for a reason: build your civilization and advance it and retain that identity throughout the span of centuries. The United States of America, the name, has been around for 200+ years (relatively young in historical terms); if the span of light years is conquered and we colonize another planet, we then have a choice: keep the current name of USA, or change the name. If a new name is chosen then the "USA" dies as a civilization and a new civilization is born. Period - end of story. In simple game terms, game over for USA player, reset points to zero, start new Civilization. Much like your drivers license, your name is your identity.

 

[Algernon Pondlife]

The spirit of this idea is excellent. The problems lie with implementation. In the game at present there is an inexorable drive towards bigger and more powerful (with setbacks of course, but these are only set to challenge the determined empire builder). The game is largely set as an attempt to build a succesful empire over six thousand years.

Slight divergence from the historical experience here. I have long worried at the idea of a game that reflects the true picture where all empires turn to dust and all civilizatios inherit attributes from the past, but not often the prvious power base. The poblem is how to retain the player when his early empire succumbs to the natural order of things. In truth I haven't a clue. The simplistic idea of just switching to a rising star seems a bit artificial and unsatisfying. Perhaps the player could be a wandering adviser selling his services to one empire after another, but how do you implement that kind of system playably?

The game models for Europa Universalis and Crusader Kings work more like this, but they are modeling the detail of history rather than the nature of history, and of course a very much smaller time period. So the players find the limitations placed on their powers acceptable and empire building is done with less global pretensions.

I doubt if Civ can be moved radically in that direction and so there is still a game out there waiting to be designed.

Cheers

Algae