Diverse civs or open gameplay?

[Loppan Torkel]

The civs would evolve differently and gain unique features during the game but they wouldn't be connected to the realworld history. If the civs are 'hardwired' or restricted either from the beginning or during the game, the game would probably offer more diversity but on the other hand not be as open.
Agree/don't agree? questions?

 

[Commander Bello]

Checked for all traits / all religions.
The rest could be nation-specific, I'd guess.

 

[Lockesdonkey]

There needs to be some difference between civs...I think of civing as painting, where the civs are the paint. You use the same red paint that history laid down, but the rest must be up to you. I think that techs and religions need to be open to all, and because they affect a nation's development, and a nation's development affects its fundamental traits, then traits must also be open.

 

[dh_epic]

To some degree, people might be freaked out by the idea of having no traits at all, or no personalities at all. Just as a point of clarification, having the "same psyche" is more that everyone could be in any of many psyches, not that they all have no psyche or the same psyche. Equal access, once again.

 

[Loppan Torkel]

To some degree, people might be freaked out by the idea of having no traits at all, or no personalities at all.

I know. I tried to explain that the features would evolve during the game instead if the traits weren't tied to the civs.

Just as a point of clarification, having the "same psyche" is more that everyone could be in any of many psyches, not that they all have no psyche or the same psyche. Equal access, once again.

I'm not sure what you're clarifying with the 'same psyche'. It's the direct connection of different territorial/racial/cultural/civ-identifying aspects to individual civs I'm questioning, like in the other questions. The civs will evolve and change in relations and with governments but that's not the issue here.

 

[dh_epic]

Well, the idea that Caesar isn't always a vicious jerk, and Ghandi isn't always a patient pacifist. But that doesn't mean that everyone is a vicious jerk, or everyone is a patient pacifist. The idea that there are differences between the AI Civ personalities, but they're random.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

To clarify my position. I am a strong believer in evolutionary civs. The only thing which should ultimately define a civ is its Leaders, its Culture Group and its Unique Unit. Everything else should depend on the players actions through the game. This way, an 'industrious' civ in the current system, who is surrounded by plains and grasslands, won't be disadvantaged in my preferred system-as they will simply go on to be, say, an agricultural/expansionist civ (and benefit accordingly).
Once your initial civ traits are determined, then this may impact on your access to improvements, wonders, technologies and even other units. Of course, you can change course at any stage, thus leaving yourself open to another 'Trait Shift'. At least, thats how I prefer to see it happen!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[Loppan Torkel]

@dh epic: Ok, maybe there should have been a question solely regarding the AI behavior, it's kind of baked in the psyche question now, even though the question mostly concerns the civs' identities.

@Aussie Lurker: I have to ask in what way the Leaders you mention should define the civs? Is it the leaderheads or the greatleaders you're refering to, and would they define the civs in any other way than having different names?

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

@Loppan Torkel

Primarily I mean the various Great Leaders, though the CHOICE of Leaderhead would also depend on the specific Civ-almost everything else should be 'up in the air', as it were!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[dh_epic]

I'm actually surprised people support "open access to all religions" as much as they do. I mean, I support that decision, it's what I picked. But I'm starting to get this sense:

People are open minded and want pie in the sky features for everything. They want a dynamic game where choices influence their civilization's identity. But if a feature already exists in a constrained way, people generally don't like change. Hence why everyone is cool with the same tech tree, and everyone is cool with different unique units -- change is bad.

 

[MeteorPunch]

I'm for divirsifying as much as possible, making every civ powerful in it's own way so that they become harder to compare side by side.

 

[Kosez]

I am a strong believer in evolutionary civs. The only thing which should ultimately define a civ is its Leaders, its Culture Group and its Unique Unit. Everything else should depend on the players actions through the game. This way, an 'industrious' civ in the current system, who is surrounded by plains and grasslands, won't be disadvantaged in my preferred system-as they will simply go on to be, say, an agricultural/expansionist civ (and benefit accordingly).
Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

Yes, evolution is what we need in CivIV. Evolution in all aspects of civilization: governments, traits, units (UU`s could evolve and thus not become obsolete, for example English could have allways better naval units, Germans flanked units, Persians offensive units, etc...), even techs.
Yes, I am pro C. Darwin

 

[rhialto]

@dh epic
The reason I want religion to be open and most of the rest prescribed by teh cvi definition is because religion is such an inherently controversial topic. And frankly, fundies scare me.

 

[brrrrrett]

I've never particularly liked the way that all civs end up pretty much at the same overall level, with the same weaponry, culture, buildings and even look and feel to them. Units should look different, maybe acting different from culture to culture, why shouldn't one civ have superior tanks or archers to another? Perhaps towns and cities themselves could look different and the buildings within them serve different purposes.

 

[Loppan Torkel]

I'm actually surprised people support "open access to all religions" as much as they do. I mean, I support that decision, it's what I picked. But I'm starting to get this sense:

People are open minded and want pie in the sky features for everything. They want a dynamic game where choices influence their civilization's identity. But if a feature already exists in a constrained way, people generally don't like change. Hence why everyone is cool with the same tech tree, and everyone is cool with different unique units -- change is bad.

I have to say I'm more surprised that not more people support both the same access to religions and techs based on their civchoice, around 50% only. Even I who'd like to keep the diversity nearly voted for those.

I agree that change is often seen as bad and that it might reflect on the poll to some degree. On the other hand the choices aren't totally comparable that one could draw such a clear conclusion.

 

[dh_epic]

That's true. Interpreting polls is fun because there's a lot of variety in what the numbers could say.

Truthfully, a lot of people complain that the civilizations are too similar throughout the game. This is a complaint I agree with.

But there's another alternative besides "access to everything" versus "hardwiring each civilization with unique properties".

The alternative that I like (for at least some game play features) is to let in-game decisions affect your civilization. I've talked about a branching tech tree, for example. Do you want more powerful tanks, or a more powerful democracy? Let the player decide.

 

[Loppan Torkel]

The alternative that I like (for at least some game play features) is to let in-game decisions affect your civilization. I've talked about a branching tech tree, for example. Do you want more powerful tanks, or a more powerful democracy? Let the player decide.

I honestly had this in mind, we've discussed it before, but there's nothing that excludes, for example, a branching techtree in where the player decides which direction one's civ should take, if certain civfeatures were to be hardwired.
It's a great idea to allow more options for the player, such as in a branching techtree, but this poll was only meant to show what features, if any, the people here wants to see tied to specific civs.
I see your point however - Leaving the civs similar at start doesn't have to mean a lack of diversity in the game.

 

[dh_epic]

That's how I interpretted it, too. But there are people who still see this dilemma as "access to everything" versus "hardwiring each civilization with unique properties". A lot of people want to be able to differentiate their civs, but so far have only seen "hardwiring" as the only solution.

 

[Naokaukodem]

Make every civ with the same and heteroclit units, like the war elephant, the legion, the phalanx and so on!!

 

[Loppan Torkel]

Make every civ with the same and heteroclit units, like the war elephant, the legion, the phalanx and so on!!

I guess you'd like everything to be identical at the start, and with all 'unique' units open for everyone? or would you only be able to research one arbitrary UU per civ and when that is done, it would be yours only and in the meantime restrict you from researching any other UUs?