Evolution of Civs?

[Darth Tribble]

It has been a staple of Civ games for Civs to be pretty much static (same leader since the dawn of time, still in the same outfit, civ has been around since 4000 BC...). Of course the Civs do change when you discover new technologies, they get more advanced units, their borders change, etc, but I am talking about something else.

Most of the nations around today are fairly young. Their people may have lived in the land for thousands of years, but their nation in its modern form is young.

Most of the civilizations we consider ancient (Egypt, Greece, Israel) are still around, but are nothing like their ancient versions. In the Civ games, you play the exact same Civ that has been around since 4000 BC. Lots of nations IRL, were founded upon the ashes of an older nation that inhabited the same territory and maybe even spoke the same language.

China, for example, were three different kingdoms before being unified by Qin Shihuang. With India, there was the Gupta, Maurya, and Mughal empires.

What I propose is that in the Civ game, a Civ "changes form" to a related Civ. Like instead of playing as just England, you start off as Anglo- Saxons with a certain leader, then eventually transition to renaissance era as Elizabeth, and then in the Industrial Era, you become the United Kingdom.

I think that would make history in Civ games more interesting than just "Founded Civ, been here for thousands of years. Went to war with Civ B, conquered their land. Founded religion, etc. IRL, civs were rising and falling, expanding and declining all throughout history.

Thoughts?

 

[Stringer1313]

If you are speaking purely in cosmetic terms, i.e., it would have zero effect on gameplay, then I think I like the idea. I am probably in the minority but I really liked how in Civ II they made an attempt to modify the government leader titles depending on the civ and even depending on the gender --- so monarchy in egypt would make you "Pharoah" whereas in England it would be "King/Queen". I actually really , really liked that and miss it. I didn't like how in Civ 5, you would be "Lord" even if you were a female ruler.

If, however, you are suggesting that the changes result in some gameplay changes, then I would not want it because it would probably result in more confusion than fun. I am of the (small?) camp that really dislikes the Europa Universalis series because I find there extreme realism-based gameplay to be extremely confusing and not fun. I think EU is for players who really, really, love realism and micromanagement.

 

[Gorbles]

It's more that actual historical simulation based on established history throws faction balance out of the window. In Europa Universalis this is accepted; certain factions are simply harder to play than others (Scotland, as an easy example) and always will be. Others are easier (Austria, Burgundy - depending on the version of the game, and others).

This rubs up against leaders / civilisations at least being vaguely-balanced in Civilisation games, or as a baseline being able to compete on the same footing, because it simply wouldn't be possible. Also, how do you implement non-historical progression? Romans failing to conquer England, the Spanish failing to decimate the Aztecs, and so forth.

As a cosmetic? It'd simply be expanding on the first Civilisation's evolving advisor portraits / leader backdrops over time. Nothing wrong with that.

 

[AriochIV]

I don't think actually changing the civilization leader and name over time would add anything to gameplay. It might please some hardcore historicity buffs in a Rhyse of Civilizations kind of way, but it would kind of break the historical flow of your own playthrough. The change of civilizations from Rome to Byzantium or Anglo-Saxon England to Norman England were caused by specific historical events that almost certainly didn't happen in your playthrough, and so would come out of nowhere. And I don't think that many players would appreciate sudden changes to their civilizations that are out of their control; if I chose to play China under Qin Shi Huang, I'm not go to appreciate being forced to switch to playing the Mongol Empire under Kublai Khan.

That said, I'm okay with the idea of each civilization representing the whole continuum of that region/culture where possible, so I'd be okay with adding more period-specific elements to each civilization to let them evolve more subtly over time, like giving England early Celtic units, or Rome some medieval Byzantine units, but this would remove Celts and Byzantium and the like from the game as independent civilizations, and I'm not sure everyone would like that.

 

[Verified_Confection_Being]

I was thinking about this sorta thing lately actually. My idea was to reduce the number of ages in game to maybe fice (ancient, classical, medieval, early modern and modern), and you choose a new leader each time you age up.

So to start the game you would pick your basic culture with a set leader. Your basic culture (eg Chinese) gives you a certain bonus that stays throughout the game. The leader (eg emperor Shun, as an ancient era emperor), givse you another bonus that lasts just for the era, until you reach the next and choose a new leader.

You then have 3 choices. One unique to your culture, (eg as China Qin Shi Huang for the classical). The other two would then be related to your neighbours, whom your culture historically interacted with and swapped lands with. (eg. maybe a leader from classical Indochina, and a leader from classical Korea). Each would have a unique bonus assigned to them for the classical era that ends when you enter the medieval and rechoose a leader. The latter two however, would be shared options with nearby culture, and cannot be selected by more than one player, so whoever ages up first gets them and their bonus first.

Then the next ages up you continue to get your leader unique to your culture and some other nearby shared leaders, but with as much variance in location and culture of leaders as possible, with an emphasis towards particularly significant leaders and cultures in the said period of course.

I also thought it may be kinda cool if you could chain through leaders this way, so potentially starting as China, then choosing say an Indian leader as an option, then a Persian in the medieval, then an Arab in the Early Modern, then a Spanish in the modern, or something or that ilk. But that's just a variation on the basic idea that i quite like

 

[KrikkitTwo]

Well I see a few ways for it to work

1. historical cosmetic depending on era

2. "Alt-history" cosmetic depending on gameplay (you pick a monarchy, you are called king X of Anglo-Saxon kingdom...Pick Autocracy-Lord Protector X of the British Union, Order-Comrade X of Oceania), etc... Might work with government types (I remember being the Reverend Abraham Lincoln in Civ2)

3. Cosmetic Choices per era

4. Gameplay+cosmetic auto per era

5. Gameplay+cosmetic choices per era

I'd Opt for 2 or 3 because
1-it allows choice
2-it is only cosmetic (easier to balance)

Option 2; I would say is best because it gets the best connection between gameplay and appearance.
(you also could only change names with that model...which would be cheaper for graphics) Have Elizabeth I Anglo-Saxon Chieftess all the way to Comrade Elizabeth I of Oceania

 

[Browd]

Moderator Action: Moved to Ideas & Suggestions.

 

[Iapetus303]

I don't think actually changing the civilization leader and name over time would add anything to gameplay. It might please some hardcore historicity buffs in a Rhyse of Civilizations kind of way, but it would kind of break the historical flow of your own playthrough.

I think it could work if:
1) Civs and leaders worked as in Civ IV (i.e. certain bonuses were tied to the civ, and others to the leader)
2) It was optional as to whether you could change the leader. (Ther could be three options when setting up the game: fixed leaders, automatic leader changes, or optional leader changes).

And I don't think that many players would appreciate sudden changes to their civilizations that are out of their control; if I chose to play China under Qin Shi Huang, I'm not go to appreciate being forced to switch to playing the Mongol Empire under Kublai Khan.

What could make that work would be if barbarians capture you capital, they demand you submit to their rule. If you do, you become a new ruler (and possibly a new civ) controlling your current cities and units, the capital, and any nearby barbarian cities and units. Or you could refuse, and continue fighting normally.

That said, I'm okay with the idea of each civilization representing the whole continuum of that region/culture where possible, so I'd be okay with adding more period-specific elements to each civilization to let them evolve more subtly over time, like giving England early Celtic units, or Rome some medieval Byzantine units, but this would remove Celts and Byzantium and the like from the game as independent civilizations, and I'm not sure everyone would like that.

England (should really be Britain in such a case) wasn't the only place with Celts, so if the Celts were in as a separate civilization, you could just assume they were a different group of Celts. Byzantium could be more of a problem as that was a successor to both Greece and Rome. I suppose one solution would be to mark certain civs as being successors to others (Greece/Rome > Byzantium, Aztecs > Mexico, etc), and have an option in game setup as to whether original and successor civs can appear in the same game (and if not, whether to only have the originals, only have the successors, or randomize it).

 

[Loaf Warden]

I suppose one solution would be to mark certain civs as being successors to others [. . .] Aztecs > Mexico

This suggestion has popped up on occasion for as long as I've been on this forum, and this example right here shows why it wouldn't work. Mexico is not, in any meaningful sense, a "successor" to the Aztecs. Mexico exists because the Aztecs were conquered by outsiders who imposed their language, their religion, and their way of life on to the region, creating a new nation where the Native peoples (like the Aztecs) have often been marginalized. I, for one, would not accept a game where I'm building up a mighty Aztec Empire, and then, without anyone having conquered me, I'm suddenly el presidente de México.

Very few civs have existed from ancient times in any way that the various forms could count as successors to one another. You could get away with it for China. You could count the Germans if you started with Germanic tribesmen and moved through the Holy Roman Empire into modern Germany. But you could not have the Babylonians turn into the Iraqis; they're a different people. And taking a Native American people (like the Aztecs, Iroquois, or Inca) and having them "evolve into" a modern nation descended from white conquerors (like Mexico, America, or Peru) would be insulting.

In some cases, I'd be okay with alternate forms existing for the civs (like an Elizabethan England and a Victorian Great Britain) as long as I could choose which one I felt like playing as and the game wouldn't include more than one in a single play-through. The whole point of the game--and the tagline of the original--is to "build an empire to stand the test of time". The Aztecs didn't in real history because they were conquered by the Spanish and a new nation, that of Mexico, ended up taking its place. The point of the Civilization franchise is that we can take the Aztecs and make a lasting nation with them. This doesn't work if you reach a certain era and suddenly the Aztecs have, with no in-game reason, morphed into Mexico.

 

[Krajzen]

1) Too much work for questionable gain
2) Breaking game's atmosphere and basic traditions (leader + civ)
3) Breaking game's balance
4) Regarding realism, it would make even less sense than one immortal leader. Indian empires were disconnected from each other - Mughals started as invaders from the outside, for example, having initially nothing in common with previous Indian dynasties. Same for Qing in China, Siam-Ayutthaia-Thailand for Siam, Russia pre and after Mongol invasion etc. The solution proposed by this thread would result in nonsense worse than the one it is trying to prevent.
5) Not to mention many civs simply couldn't undergo such evolution for obvious reasons, such as America.


Mexico is not successor of Aztecs
Mughals are not successor of Gupta
Russian Empire is not a successor of Kievan Rus
Byzantium is not a successor of classical Greece
Islamic Egypt is not a successor of ancient Egypt
Islamic Iraq is not a successor of Babylon
Morocco is not a successor of Numidia
France is not a successor of Gauls
etc

The concept simply doesn't work on any level except very few civs, and even then I'd call it a stretch (it maaaybe could work for Korea and Japan, I can't think of any more civs fitting it - even China fails with Yuan and Qing breaking continuity, and Persia fails with same for Mongol/Timurid invasions).

Conclusion: the idea is fundamentally flawed.

 

[dexters]

We're more likely to see city states evolve before we get to civs evolving.