Expansion and beliefs...

[Naokaukodem]

Hunter-Gatherers / Pastoralists / Migrating Agriculture / Others ?

I really think that it should be let up to the player's choice whether he wants to go agriculture or not at the begining of the game.

That implies (a) new form(s) of economy, hunter-gatherers or pastoralists for example.

Because I don't see how we could simulate correctly how people migrate if we don't include that.

Humankind colonized the whole planet before going agriculture. There's no fertile [totally] no man's land being colonized by late settlers. (and by late, I mean 4000 BC)

The only thing that changed with agriculture is the structure of the society, and possibly the apparition of sedentarism. Also, the size of the settlements that became "cities", and the repartition of population that went very condensated in cities and stayed the same elsewhere. (unless there have been a first rural exode, hunter-gatherers being attracted by cities) But I do believe that most hunter-gatherers wanted to keep their way of life. Thing is they just got kind of "exterminated" by the growing rampage of farms and deforestation, and foundings of new cities always. (like in current Civs when a goody hut disappears when encountered, even if in this case this is very artificial)

With the apparition of armies, hunter-gatherers could not even say a word anymore. They were condemned to slaving, human sacrifices (mesoamerica (only ?)) or vassalizing/colonization, so the player should go agriculture at a point but not necessarily at the right start.

Agriculture and armies were possible only within the Cognitive revolution. (See the book "Sapiens") Indeed, people had to believe in the same things in order to cooperate, even if those things didn't existed. This was made possible by a mutation affectating the human brain. (Homo Sapiens brain, that is) It's a kind of perversion that allowed a lot of people to be commanded by a few, and executing coordinate moves.

The ancestor of Homo Sapiens couldn't go out of Africa because he was stopped by Neandertals, stronger and smarter. That's only with the Cognitive revolution that he could form big groups and conquer the world, exterminating actively or passively (probably both) the other dominant species (human or not).

Although, I don't think this should be represented in the game as this go too far way from the idea of civilization, and in time. We should begin with Sapiens domination.

As the turns represent hundred years at the beginning of the game, the expansion could be quite rapid. But I think that firstable, the game should model it pre-start, and it should continue once the game begins.

Expansionism.

Faith (beliefs) should play a major role in the early game. Major beliefs should pop out pretty quickly, and of course the idea of expansion with them. (the other are wrong, we are right) That's why a lot of major civilizations would be expansionist.

Having a settlement the same belief of yours would put it in your empire. Of course, it would not literally belong to you, they would more or less act like vassals in Civ4. And not to forget, if your belief becomes the one of another settlement or group of cities, it could become more powerful that your own shining, and menace your hegemony. This could be represented by votes like in Civ5 UN, and limited decision making like in Civ2 Democracy government.

As you see, there would be a whole new layer of internal control.

Now it's still to determine how you convert the people to your beliefs, as long as those people still have their own. One could imagine they wouldn't be so incline to change their beliefs. It's up to you to use the means one could use in Civ5 and Civ6 for City-States, by sending emissaries, menacing them with an army, sending missionaries, etc.

Also, beliefs changes could be made naturally. For example, if you are in contact with different tribes, your beliefs could mix up, or add up, and form a new belief or ensemble of beliefs. Even if you are doing nothing with those tribes, the fact that contacts between free people would be easier would count. For example, a tribe separated from another by a river would have high contact. Another one separated by another by grassland would have also good contact, determined then by distance. But a tribe separated by another by forest, jungle of a sea (before sailing) would have naturally few contact with each other. (unless you create roads, trade routes, treaties, ambassies, etc.) Some civilizations would even be so familiar with forests and jungles that those would not stop too roughly this permeability. (but still a little bit, because obstacles are what they are) (Zulus) We could imagine the same with hills and mountains. (Incas)

On the same note, you could lose contact with a city you settled, if your people lose contact for too long with it, depending again on geography, trade routes, etc... their beliefs could change, like schisms in religions.

Now, if people with the same beliefs as yourself would be kind of part of your empire, your empire could also include people with different beliefs than yours, by conquest. But I would say that those cities with different beliefs would not be nearly as much useful as your core ones. Gameplay wise it would limit snowballing. Converting the people by force is impossible, it just results in rebellions. Therefore, conquests would have limited importance for the conqueror. It forces civilizations to build up and consolidate internally before going conquest all crazy eventually. One thing you could do though, is going for conquest of already-the-same-beliefs-than-you cities, to increase your power on them. Early it wouldn't be seen as a military dictature, and by the way this word is overused for everything that is not "democracy".

Conclusion :

The world in 4000 BC was fully populated by hunter-gatherers that moved to survive. Homo-Sapiens could even form groups up to a thousand individuals in order to conquer new territories, which they did until the borders of Earth. The Agricultural revolution made it possible to the population to grow bigger, and to have specialized workers such as politicians or soldiers, and therefore huge armies. Every model of beliefs were fighting, in the "we are right, you are wrong" philosophy. Most of the main civilizations had a name to describe the strangers, each which could translate into "barbarians". It's a matter of believing the same thing even if it does not exist. Wars will always exist until everyone trusts into the same asset of beliefs or convert their mind. Minds can be converted by demonstrations of wealth and prosperity for example. It becomes "we are wrong, they are right, let's try to do like them".
Previous Civs had systems of beliefs like culture or religion. What about trying to unite them ?

 

[Zaarin]

Personally I think this is moving away from 4X and into grand strategy territory. Besides, a game called "Civilization" implies that it begins with urbanization; hunter-gatherers and pastoralists are represented in-game by barbarians. I do agree, however, that the empty world at the start and slow early expansion feels wrong, and if an expansion can find a way to improve those mechanics I'm all for it.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

As I remember, last year before Civ VI distracted us, we debated the (Stuffing) out of how to include or represent Pastoral/Nomadic and other 'alternatives' to the classic City Is Everything model of the Civ Franchise.
And for all that, as far as Firaxis is concerned, we might as well have been posting in Proto-Indo-European ...

And, although Civilization implies Cities, the Civ games have persisted in including 'Civilizations' (Cultural Groups) that never were associated with cities: Huns, Scythians, Iroquois/Huadenosenee, Lakotah, Polynesians, etc.
For that matter, very, very few of the 'Civilizations' built any cities until long after 4000 BCE: in fact, although the world might have been 'filled' with recognizable Human Groups in 4000 BCE, you could count on the fingers of one hand the places you'd find them in anything resembling a 'city' - or a town or village.

So, I still think we need to be able to represent a potentially playable Faction that does not have to plunk down wherever they happen to find themselves at dawn on 1 January, 4000 BCE and start slapping together mud-bricks or timber framing.

I would further suggest that what differentiates the various Groups has very little to do (initially) with Culture or language or Religion, but Food. Quite simply, if there's a continuously-renewable food source or sources in one place, your group will stay in that place. If the food runs out, or moves of its own accord (Bison, Cattle, Deer, etc) - you have to move, also.

Base it on Starting Position. That is artificial, because your 'group' may have been wandering around for centuries, but all Starting Points are artificial, so:
It's dawn on 1.1.-4000, and you need two things to survive and a third thing to Prosper (survive the first 50 - 75 turns of the game)
1. Water source
2. Food source
3. 'Technology' resource (for lack of a better term)
Water source around your starting position can be a river, oasis, lake, or the sea coast - because non-map-shown streams run down to the sea just about everywhere, for our game purposes.
Food source divides, historically, into three main types:
Exploitable Plants: wild grains, fruits, tubers. Found in sufficient abundance on terrain types: grasslands, marshes, hills, forests, along rivers, jungles
Exploitable Animals: Deer, Cattle, Sheep, Horses, Pigs, Birds, etc. Found in sufficient abundance in Plains, grasslands, marshes, hills, along rivers, (Deserts), (Tundra)
Exploitable Sea Creatures: Fish, shellfish, (Large Mammals) Found, obviously, in Water: coastal waters, rivers, lakes, (Sea)
The items in parentheses Require some very specific technology to exploit efficiently enough to be worthwhile: IF you start in Desert or Tundra, you'd better have a UA handy or move out of there fast, or in that particular game you will become an Archeological Site, not a civilization.

The 'Technology' resource is something your civilization/group can use to Improve Their Lives. The earliest exploitable Resources were:
Clay for Pottery
Wood for construction/weapons
Stone for Monumental Construction/tools (flint blades, stone hammers, among other things)
Copper or Obsidian: Copper because it is found in pure enough form to be 'cold worked' (pounded) into useful tools/shapes, and Obsidian naturally flakes into very sharp blades.
So, in Game Terms, you should hope to have one or more tiles of Forest or Jungle, Flood Plain (Clay) or Stone/Copper/Volcano Resource in your Starting Radius to exploit. If not, then you will have to work hard to develop other resources through Technology early in the game

So, you examine the Starting Resources, and select Starting Attributes for your Group: a Starting Technology and Civic/Cultural Trait
Technology:
Agriculture to exploit the plants
Animal Husbandry to exploit the animals
Boating to exploit the waters
Civic: - these are suggestions based on what I know of history, because I think the CivVI Civics need Major Revising
Warrior Culture
Craftsmanship
Mysticism

Now, certain combinations are going to lead you in certain directions of development - Civilization-wide 'Eurekas', if you will:
Agriculture combined with wood or stone and you will settle down and start a city right away - you have everything you need to start developing Construction, Pottery, Masonry technologies, and all the 'city skills' and Civics.
Animal Husbandry gives you no incentive to settle down, because it allows you to 'exploit' ('harvest?') animal resources up to several tiles outside your starting radius - but the closer you are to them, the more you get out of them. Also, the hide, sinew, and bone from large animals gives you Resource materials for bows, spears, leather armor - 'military' resources
Boating depends on what else you have to work with. If a source of wood/timber is handy, you will be well on your way to Ship Building and Sailing and exploiting sea resources well off the coast - and any handy islands nearby. IF you have no timber, then your boats will be hide coracles or reed boats - you will still be on your way to Sailing, and exploiting more rapid movement along rivers, but it ma take longer.

Of course, this model would have the 'Civilization' you are playing be utterly Random until After the game starts: starting position and choices made from it would tell you whether you are going to play as Scythians or Somalis, Irish or Iroquois. I'd like that, but I realize I'm in a tiny, tiny minority, so instead, certain aspects of the Starting Position would be set by the Civ you are playing.

For example:
Scythia would Always start with Exploitable Animals and plains or grassland in the Start Position
Egypt would Always have a river, Flood Plains, and Stone in the Start Position
Greece would Always start on the coast with Forest and Stone in the Starting Position.
- You get the picture. These are by no means where the groups started in 4000 BCE, but they give each group the 'starting resources' that define the modern View of the civilization. It should be an interesting, and sometimes infuriating, exercise to see how many combinations we can provide in the game, and how many ways they can/should be combined for specific Civs.

By the way, just taking the following Components from the current Civ VI:
Water Source: oasis, river, lake, coast: 4
Food Source: wheat, rice, cattle, sheep. deer, fish, bananas, crabs: 8
'Tech' Resource: copper, stone, forest, jungle, flood plain(clay): 5

They combine to make at least 160 different Starting Positions - should be enough for a DLC or 10...

 

[Zaarin]

And, although Civilization implies Cities, the Civ games have persisted in including 'Civilizations' (Cultural Groups) that never were associated with cities: ...Iroquois/Huadenosenee...

Define "city"--I'd call the Iroquois an urbanized culture. They may not have had thousands of people living in one place, but they did live in tightly clustered walled permanent settlements (and even engaged in siege warfare, for which they earned the name "Town Destroyers" in the languages of many of their neighbors) with a comparatively high population density. Same for the indigenous people of the PNW (albeit sans agriculture and siege warfare--but warfare in the PNW was highly ritualized almost to the point of being "trial by champion"). I don't think it's fair to use modern cities as a comparison; in 4000 BC a thousand people in one place is a city, even if in modern times a quaint hamlet of 1000 wouldn't even show up on a map.

I do like your ideas, though.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Define "city"--I'd call the Iroquois an urbanized culture. They may not have had thousands of people living in one place, but they did live in tightly clustered walled permanent settlements (and even engaged in siege warfare, for which they earned the name "Town Destroyers" in the languages of many of their neighbors) with a comparatively high population density. Same for the indigenous people of the PNW (albeit sans agriculture and siege warfare--but warfare in the PNW was highly ritualized almost to the point of being "trial by champion"). I don't think it's fair to use modern cities as a comparison; in 4000 BC a thousand people in one place is a city, even if in modern times a quaint hamlet of 1000 wouldn't even show up on a map.

I do like your ideas, though.

In fact, the identification of the 'urbanization' of northeastern North America has been increasingly recognized - when I was in school half a century ago or so, the estimated population of Pre-Columbian North America was estimated at about a million. The estimate last I looked was 30,000,000 and climbing. Not only the Iroquois, but the tribes of southern New England and the Susquehanna of central Pennsylvania had dense networks of villages (in the case of the Susquehanna, Walled Villages upon which the Iroquois honed their siege tactics).

And, of course, the Pacific Northwest had one of the densest non-agricultural populations in the world: largely because of the mind-boggling abundance of sea/river resources, from salmon to shellfish to whales, all of which were enthusiastically and efficiently harvested.

BUT I would argue that the Specialization associated with Urbanization was only just beginning to take place among any of the North American cultures, except in the very limited form of the Hunter, the Tiller (mostly women), the Maker of Tools and Weapons - that most of the 'skills' were still pretty generalized. A true urban culture, I think, begins when Internal Trade within the city/town/hamlet is important enough that people specialize many different skills to exploit it. As my old archeology professor summed it up: "If a pot was thrown on a wheel, it was made to sell or trade by a specialist who had a market for a lot of pots. A pot built up by hand was made to use around the hut, house or tent: it's not part of an urban economy."

Which does not say how far the Iroquois were from that point: having both agriculture (the 'American Trinity' of beans, corn and squash) and extensive modification of their environment (burning out and clearing forest undergrowth, manufacturing open glade land to attract larger prey animals, etc) I think they were probably less than a century away from some real urban commerce when they got hemmed in between the British, French, and Colonials.

The parallel is with the Celtic Gauls, who were just developing some really large (estimated 20,000 in Gergovia) urban concentrations, complete with sophisticated road networks and agricultural efficiencies at least as good or better than the 'civilized' Romans, when Caesar cut off their development...

 

[Zaarin]

@Boris Gudenuf All good points, and also a strong argument in favor of the PNW who had true specialists (especially woodworkers*, carvers**, weavers [again, mostly women, but that was true in the Old World as well], shamans, healers [also mostly women and a distinct class from shamans--who could also be women but were usually men]).

*All men in the PNW had knowledge of woodworking, but when you wanted a canoe or crest pole or memorial pole or dancing mask made you paid a specialist from the opposite moiety to craft it for you then honored him at a potlatch.
**Of things other than wood. Ivory, bone, and stone carvings were not quite so popular among the PNW natives as among the Inuit, but the Haida in particular did a good deal of carving in argillite, and the Tlingit and Tsimshian carved greenstone (both nephrite and green chert).

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

To swing this back to the OP (Original Purpose) of the thread...

I really think that it should be let up to the player's choice whether he wants to go agriculture or not at the begining of the game.

That implies (a) new form(s) of economy, hunter-gatherers or pastoralists for example.

Because I don't see how we could simulate correctly how people migrate if we don't include that.

Absolutely in agreement, as I hope previous Posts indicated. Even most of the current 'Civilizations' included in Civ V/VI were, in 4000 BCE, Pre-Urban and didn't start building cities until long after the game starts.

Conclusion :

The world in 4000 BC was fully populated by hunter-gatherers that moved to survive. Homo-Sapiens could even form groups up to a thousand individuals in order to conquer new territories, which they did until the borders of Earth. The Agricultural revolution made it possible to the population to grow bigger, and to have specialized workers such as politicians or soldiers, and therefore huge armies. Every model of beliefs were fighting, in the "we are right, you are wrong" philosophy. Most of the main civilizations had a name to describe the strangers, each which could translate into "barbarians". It's a matter of believing the same thing even if it does not exist. Wars will always exist until everyone trusts into the same asset of beliefs or convert their mind. Minds can be converted by demonstrations of wealth and prosperity for example. It becomes "we are wrong, they are right, let's try to do like them".
Previous Civs had systems of beliefs like culture or religion. What about trying to unite them ?

Several points:
First, Agriculture was not the only 'Technology' that allowed larger population: Pastoral Herding which developed in the central Asia landmass (the Steppes) also allowed for larger populations than before, and because the skills required by herders to protect the food animals were also Military (riding, mounted archery) they could put a much larger percentage of their population 'into battle' than the armies of agricultural states. This Pastoral Technology development may have started at the same time as the Agricultural Revolution (the evidence so far is pretty thin on the ground, the transition from hunting cattle to herding them or gathering grains to planting them is hard to determine precisely from archeological record)
BUT it pretty definitely Predates Game Start: the first agricultural 'village', the invention of the wheel, and the (probable) domestication of cattle all occurred within 500 years of each other, and all 2300 - 2800 years before 4000 BCE. There's even evidence of domestication of the horse as a draft animal several hundred years before 4000 BCE - but only, so far, in one place on the globe.

Second, there are some Civics and Religious Beliefs that affect how much 'conquering' and 'expansion' can happen, and they are later than 4000 BCE.
Early Human groups, up to and including the earliest Urban Civilizations, were Exclusive. You might share cultural, linguistic, and technological characteristics, but if the Other was not from your clan. tribe, or City, they were Foreign=Enemy. If you conquered them, you had no conceptual basis for 'incorporating' them into your group, except as Slaves or Tribute-Payers. Empire, at the beginning of the game, consists in Game Terms of a Home City and a bunch of Puppet Cities.
The first change to this attitude seems to have been in Egypt about 3000 BCE, Mesopotamia Possibly a little later, and everywhere else much, much later (if ever!). The first really well-documented Empire in which we can tell how they did it is, really, the Persian: basically, they put Persians in charge of over-all policy, they ran Foreign Affairs, but each individual cultural group they conquered could pretty much run their own internal affairs the same way they always had, including religion, as long as they paid their taxes and showed up for battle when levied.

Interestingly, this 'Civic' advance appears at almost the same time as the first Great Wave of Religion: (my source here is Armstrong's The Great Transformation, which I highly recommend as a thought-provoker) In about 700 - 500 BCE (Jewish) Monotheism, Zoroastrianism, (written codification of) Hinduism, Buddhism, Greek (semi-secular) Philosophy, Taoism, and Confusicanism all got their start. Possibly Coincidence, but also a possible Mechanism for a Civic/Religious Impetus for Inclusive Empires in the Game: the ability to found new cities that don't immediately become City States or Puppets only.

Later, the Romans went one better: Roman Citizenship was open to anyone who professed allegiance to Rome (and were approved, usually en masse, by the Senate) and was so attractive in its benefits that conquered peoples strove to obtain it. It meant a massive expansion of Empire to include a wide variety of cultures and religions, and a Civic Idea so strong that 'Roman Ideals' and methods were still being identified with hundreds of years after the Roman Empire (in the west) had disappeared.

Finally, I think it could be argued that the really aggressive expansionist Religions don't come around until later: Christianity and Islam and their explosive expansion (and basis for a new type of Inclusive Empire) mostly date Post-(Western) Roman Empire.

So, I think there is a good case, even without 'expanding' the game to pre-4000 BCE, for both a variety of Starting Technologies (and Civics, for that matter) as described in my earlier Pst, but also for In Game Civic Developments that drastically affect how your 'Empire' develops.
I would argue, for instance, that the Greek Civilization was enormously cohesive in that the language, cultural practices, and religion were specifically what identified them all to themselves as Greeks, but to the very end of independent Greek Polities, they never developed an Imperial Idea that someone from other than their Home City could be a Citizen. Even Alexander's Empire was never Greek: it was a typical Middle Eastern 'Persian style' Empire governed from the top and so were all of the Successor states afterwards: it was Rome that turned the areas into part of a more inclusive Empire, and Islam that made most of the same geographical/cultural areas into a near-homogenous (or 'apparently homogenous' as current events seem to be indicating) cultural, religious and (sometimes) political whole.

At the beginning of the game, then, your first city/Capital is the only city you completely control. Any new city you found or conquer is a Puppet, with various degrees of inclination to Revolt against you at any time.

The first Imperial Advance would be a Civic (Code of Laws?), available in the Ancient Era, that allows cities founded or conquered within a specific landmass to act as they do now: full parts of your 'Empire' - Landmass would be defined as an island (Crete?), a river valley (Egypt, China, Mesopotamia), a peninsula (Yucatan?). City States conquered in the same area and anything outside that area could, at best, become Puppets - and subject to Revolt at almost any time.

Next, at the beginning of the Classical Era, would be a Civic of, say, Satrapism or the current Early Empire, which allows any City or conquered City State anywhere to be a 'functioning' part of the Empire, but, while you get the benefit of Gold and Amenities produced by them, you can only set them to constructing Buildings that are your own Uniques or are Defensive (Military) structures. You can 'Levy' (require them to build) Builders or Military Units, but every time you do this, the chance they will Revolt goes up.

Finally, in the Classical Era, a Civic like Political Philosophy would allow you to build a full-fledged 'Inclusive empire' that gives the current Civ VI/V - type control over all built Cities and fully-corporates conquered cities, including enemy capitals and City States.

This also gives a beginning framework for the later incorporation of Nationalism into the game (about late Renaissance Era) and Ideology (Modern Era) to complicate the late game a little (which the Late Game sorely needs, IMHO)

 

[Manifold]

Hunter-Gatherers / Pastoralists / Migrating Agriculture / Others ?

I really think that it should be let up to the player's choice whether he wants to go agriculture or not at the begining of the game.

The Neolithic Revolution took place much earlier. But there were always nomadic tribes around. Hammurabi was originally from the nomadic Amorites. But they all just become a Civilization (by definition) when they had a city.

I mean this playstyle should be reserved for the Mongols with their roaming cities/camps. They were very good in this in their way very successful.

Expansionism.

Faith (beliefs) should play a major role in the early game. Major beliefs should pop out pretty quickly, and of course the idea of expansion with them. (the other are wrong, we are right) That's why a lot of major civilizations would be expansionist.

This should be a skill tree for the Civ like the Government legacy bonuses or the Civic tree in Civ5.
On the other hand, this is also illustrated by the cultural border expansion.

 

[Naokaukodem]

Of course my OP is not comprehensive, I fighted in order to give it something similar to a shape. There are two major ideas in it : pre-city life (I included pastoralism in the subtitle, and i know it's a valid warmonger choice until some era), and beliefs, because it's the basis of Homo Sapiens' society. (way before the Agricultural revolution, before the exit of H-S of Africa)

Boris Gudenuf, I have met this thought of beliefs tolerance by great conquerors when typing my text. Indeed, I think that's the only way to have chances of soft conversions compared to imposed ones that create rebellions. But I do think that the effects of such tolerance is the opposite of tolerance. It's just a way of keeping conquests into the range of the conqueror for a longer time. And I believe that we've seen how efficient this was, with major blocks of beliefs. The only reason why Greece didn't became Persian is that it had a strong pantheon of beliefs, in term of game a strong culture that could unite in the face of a great enemy. Game-wise, that would translate into Greek city-states being a vast state but with limited control. Additionnally, if the pantheon of beliefs of these emanates principally from the player's former city, the player should fight into keeping this pre-eminence by a system of votes like in the Civ5 UN system, otherwise HE would become the vassal, or even lose.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Of course my OP is not comprehensive, I fighted in order to give it something similar to a shape. There are two major ideas in it : pre-city life (I included pastoralism in the subtitle, and i know it's a valid warmonger choice until some era), and beliefs, because it's the basis of Homo Sapiens' society. (way before the Agricultural revolution, before the exit of H-S of Africa)

As I mentioned, we battled around the Pastoralism - Hunter-Gatherer - Agricultural Civ-Types for quite a while in Threads last year, so being Comprehensive is just not possible in a single post not rambling on for page after page. I think you did a pretty good job of presenting your thesis. And, as more and more archeological evidence suggests, some form of the Inclusive Belief systems predate the game by 1000s of years, and may (Gobekla Tepi) even pre-date Agriculture.

Boris Gudenuf, I have met this thought of beliefs tolerance by great conquerors when typing my text. Indeed, I think that's the only way to have chances of soft conversions compared to imposed ones that create rebellions. But I do think that the effects of such tolerance is the opposite of tolerance. It's just a way of keeping conquests into the range of the conqueror for a longer time. And I believe that we've seen how efficient this was, with major blocks of beliefs. The only reason why Greece didn't became Persian is that it had a strong pantheon of beliefs, in term of game a strong culture that could unite in the face of a great enemy. Game-wise, that would translate into Greek city-states being a vast state but with limited control. Additionnally, if the pantheon of beliefs of these emanates principally from the player's former city, the player should fight into keeping this pre-eminence by a system of votes like in the Civ5 UN system, otherwise HE would become the vassal, or even lose.

The Greek City States are the best example I know of both of our arguments: All of the Greek cities had a strong concept of 'Greekness' based on shared language, culture, religion, and 'folklore' (stories, beliefs) that goes back well before the Classical Era BUT they never translated that into Political Cohesion or Empire. In fact, in the great expansion/colonization by Greek cities in the 7th to 5th centuries BCE, virtually all of the new Greek Colonies remained very Greek in their belief/cultural system, but none of them had a Political connection to even their founding city. This is very, very different from all the Civ games, in which all of the colonies and the original cities would all be part of a single Political/Imperial entity. I think, as I outlined above, that we need a more flexible 'Imperial/Cultural system in the game to reflect, as you outlined, the gradual 'growth' of acceptance among Homo Politicus of 'outside' groups as part of his own group - the Imperial Idea, if you will.

Furthermore, I would argue that to this day, there are numerous groups around the world who have not entirely accepted the idea of including The Others in their own group: tribalism based on religion, language, or birthplace is still alive and well and contributing to conflict everywhere.