Historical Concepts Translated to Gameplay and Mechanics

[anonxanemone]

What are some gameplay and mechanics that represent concepts of history well? Are there any concepts that should be implemented or (if already implemented) should be implemented better?

Personally, my favorites are the eureka/inspiration and district adjacency mechanics introduced in Civilization VI (though I admit it is my first and only game in know in the franchise). I think the eurekas and inspirations muses on the serendipitous-ness of how a civilization might develop. A coastal settlement accelerates the research of sailing, starting a trade route necessitates the establishment of currency, law & order is the first prerequisite in starting a civilization through Code of Laws, etc. The only issue I have with them is the sameness of the tech tree for all civilizations and how the periods are too loosely biased towards European history. Why is the whole world in The Renaissance when renaissances happened (if such a concept exists for them) at different times for different cultures? But it's probably for balance reasons.

The district adjacency mechanic, similarly to the eureka/inspiration mechanic, highlights the importance of geography on civilizations. I particularly like the district adjacency for the Campus as each of them might represent different fields of science: mountains (astronomy as in observatories), reefs (marine sciences), and rainforests (biology/botany). Perhaps the pseudoscience of feng shui might have an element of truth to it in this aspect. Cities like Rome and Tenochtitlan were founded on the auspices concerning the land; the former having something to do with the shapes of the hills if I recall correctly and the latter having the legend of an eagle landing on a cactus with a snake in their beak.

My least favorite is how unique improvements (including those city-states) disappear when a city is conquered by a foreign force. Current political borders are not in line with the ever-changing cultural borders throughout history. Past artifacts are preserved or destroyed (or stolen/appropriated) depending on how the new power respects the predecessor. I think rethinking this mechanic could give an interesting tradeoff between remembering a legacy or destroying the past for future development; this way, a cultural or scientific victory would be easier depending on the choice.

 

[jasper]

It is 2021 regardless of what year each civ may think they are in. Period in civ6 is a world concept. The world moved on and brought everyone else along regardless of where theyre at. Golden age is the relative concept.

European bias cause Europe did a lot of this stuff. Lets be honest here. Euro centric but it is deserved, earned, fitting. A case can be made in defense at the very least.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Personally, my favorites are the eureka/inspiration and district adjacency mechanics introduced in Civilization VI (though I admit it is my first and only game in know in the franchise). I think the eurekas and inspirations muses on the serendipitous-ness of how a civilization might develop. A coastal settlement accelerates the research of sailing, starting a trade route necessitates the establishment of currency, law & order is the first prerequisite in starting a civilization through Code of Laws, etc. The only issue I have with them is the sameness of the tech tree for all civilizations and how the periods are too loosely biased towards European history. Why is the whole world in The Renaissance when renaissances happened (if such a concept exists for them) at different times for different cultures? But it's probably for balance reasons.

What was said above. Honestly only Europe had a "Renaissance" period and I think it would make more sense if it was called Early Modern Era and the Renaissance could instead be the name of the "Humanism" civic in the Civics tree.

That being said having a European/Western tech tree is the only way that you could feasibly have many technologies in the later eras.

 

[anonxanemone]

it would make more sense if it was called Early Modern Era

Isn't that what the upcoming game Humankind does?

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Isn't that what the upcoming game Humankind does?

Yes.
The Renaissance Era in game is supposed to cover scientific and cultural advancement roughly around the late 1300s/1400s to about 1760, the start of the Industrial Revolution. Of course in reality most of the European nations were out of the age of Renaissance by the time they reached the late 1600s.

 

[aieeegrunt]

As annoying as it can be at times, the one unit per tile restriction does portray the impact that terrain has on military manouver

 

[HiRezAudio]

Why change what things are called at all?
The Renaissance may have been primarily in Europe, but so what? It is what it is - can we please leave PC Wokery out of it?

 

[Kupe Navigator]

Why change what things are called at all?
The Renaissance may have been primarily in Europe, but so what? It is what it is - can we please leave PC Wokery out of it?

because it doesn't fit if you play as non-European civ? Europe isn't the only civ in the world- nor is it a major civ.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

The Renaissance may have been primarily in Europe, but so what? It is what it is - can we please leave PC Wokery out of it?

I mean there's other naming issues I'd rather change beforehand. It's not that big of a deal personally I'm just saying what it probably should be.

I'm not coming at it from a stance of political correctness or some anti-European bias, but historical correctness, considering if the Renaissance lasted to the late 1600s we still have a hundred years or so not covered, which is why I think the name Early Modern Era fits better.

 

[anonxanemone]

I mean there's other naming issues I'd rather change beforehand. It's not that big of a deal personally I'm just saying what it probably should be.

I'm not coming at it from a stance of political correctness or some anti-European bias, but historical correctness, considering if the Renaissance lasted to the late 1600s we still have a hundred years or so not covered, which is why I think the name Early Modern Era fits better.

I think the issue is finding a term that encompasses the entire world for that period of time. "Early Modern" is generic enough without reference to any histero-geopoliticality(?). I'm a little confused at the objection here; is the European Renaissance so critical to have the entire world subcribe to it? My limited knowledge of history tells me that globalization as we know it today started with the Age of Exploration but the full effect wasn't until Industrialization.

I'm curious, what other terms do you think should be changed? Is it going to start another borderline political debate? Haha.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I'm a little confused at the objection here; is the European Renaissance so critical to have the entire world subcribe to it? My limited knowledge of history tells me that globalization as we know it today started with the Age of Exploration but the full effect wasn't until Industrialization.

Well the Age of Exploration was going on while the Renaissance was happening in Europe. I guess my issue is the Renaissance is a whole era while others, like the Age of Enlightenment, are only represented by a single civic. There's no reason why the Renaissance couldn't be a civic, replacing the name Humanism, considering it, the Age of Exploration, and the Enlightenment all happened during the Early Modern Era. The timeline of the Early Modern Era is generally what the Renaissance Era in game represents anyway.

I'm curious, what other terms do you think should be changed? Is it going to start another borderline political debate? Haha.

It shouldn't. Off the top of my head the Water Park doesn't resemble a proper water park at all. It should be changed to something like Amusement Pier.
The Street Carnival of Brazil should also be named the Sambodrome.

 

[Andrew Johnson [FXS]]

It's an interesting idea to think through what kinds of periods of time were influential worldwide. Europe is a significant power post-1300 or so, but one must remember that the Silk Road commanded pretty much all of the power and wealth in the world before then. The eye of history in 1000 is on Baghdad, not Rome, and China isn't the "central kingdom" for most of history for nothing.

But one could imagine:
The Axial Age (a time when for some reason a lot of philosophers and world/historical religions began to form). From the birth of the Buddha ~500BC to the death of Muhmmad ~600AD is where most major world religions (i.e. religions that seek out new converts) explode onto the scene. Here we get also the conversion of major empires to these religions: Constantine, Ashoka, Abu Bakr, Xuanzang's trip to India.
The Silk Road era (for lack of a better term - the establishment of that great pipeline across Eurasia, facilitated by powerful empires in Mongolia and China on one end, and India and the Middle East in the middle, and a slowly recovering but a bit moribund Europe on the western end).
Age of Exploration
Modern Era (i.e. Early Modern)
Age of Revolution and Industry
Cold War / Age of Nationalism
Postmodernity / Multipolar World

Clearly these overlap. But they're also global phenomena. The idea of modern education and statecraft in the Renaissance, for instance, has strange parallels in Southeast Asia, where Islam and Theravada Buddhism turned to focus on the lives and education of everyday people, rather than exclusively on the royal courts (in Angkor or Majapahit, for instance).

 

[Republic of San Montuoso]

"Early Modern" is generic enough without reference to any histero-geopoliticality(?)

Well, you're kind of wrong. We learn that it's generic enough, but it's generic enough in a European point of view. The big divisions in History (Ancient Times, Middle-Ages, Modern Era, Contemporary Era) are heavily eurocentric.
The end of Ancient Times and beginning of Middle-Ages is usually based on the Fall of Rome (completely eurocentric), and the passage from Middle-Ages to Modern Era is based on four majors events: the disocovery of Americas (by europeans), the invention of printing press (by europeans), the fall of Byzantium (major events for Europeans, but for the arabic world, they were in the middle of a golden age) and the Reform (typically european). For China (and more largely Asia), those divisions are completely arbitrary and cover no specific event that brought distinct change in their History, and they think more (if I make no mistake) about Chinese dynasties for their historiographies (at least for China). And it's even western Europe, and even in western Europe it might be different: for France, for example, the Modern Era began with the Religions Wars.

No matter what eras you choose and how you define them, it will always be focused on a specific cultural group, and it's impossible to have a universal historiography; our own seems universal because we bath in it since forever, and because of european hegemony since the age of colonization (for Europe). And since Civilization is an American franchise (so linked to the European cultural and historiographical group) and initially aimed at European descent demographics, and since (thanks to our hegemony) European historiography is the most known throughout the world, it's "acceptable" to have the game based on European historiography. There is nothing wrong with it, but we have to remember that it's still eurocentric. Arbitrary but convenient.

 

[Earl of Pembroke]

The historical concept that I'd like to see is the introduction of city states as the game progresses. As of now, the city states are all on the map from the get-go, and I'd think it would be interesting if they phased in somewhat. So it would work like Mohenjo-Daro, Cahokia and Samarkand from the beginning, and as the game progresses you get things like Brussels in the Medieval, Auckland much later. I'm not asking for strict adherence to our timeline, but I think it would be cool if you had city states pop up on the map, sort of like discovering the strategic resources.
As of now it's a little weird you can be suzerain of Grenada and build Alcazars hundreds of turns before you can build Alhambra.

 

[Duke William of Normandy]

The historical concept that I'd like to see is the introduction of city states as the game progresses. As of now, the city states are all on the map from the get-go, and I'd think it would be interesting if they phased in somewhat. So it would work like Mohenjo-Daro, Cahokia and Samarkand from the beginning, and as the game progresses you get things like Brussels in the Medieval, Auckland much later. I'm not asking for strict adherence to our timeline, but I think it would be cool if you had city states pop up on the map, sort of like discovering the strategic resources.
As of now it's a little weird you can be suzerain of Grenada and build Alcazars hundreds of turns before you can build Alhambra.

That's true. Maybe we should have City-State Unique Units and Improvements be limited by the Tech and Civics Trees. For example, you can't build Alcazars without unlocking Castles, Monasteries without Theology, Cahokia Mounds without Pottery, etc., like how Civilization Improvements are restricted by the Tech and Civics Trees.

 

[anonxanemone]

That's true. Maybe we should have City-State Unique Units and Improvements be limited by the Tech and Civics Trees. For example, you can't build Alcazars without unlocking Castles, Monasteries without Theology, Cahokia Mounds without Pottery, etc., like how Civilization Improvements are restricted by the Tech and Civics Trees.

We have Ancient Era America and Future Era Sumeria so I like the city-state bonuses tied the tech/civics tree. I like the envoy bonuses as it is now and starting the map with them along with the civs is consistent with the "game logic" IMHO.

 

[anonxanemone]

I had another musing about the religion system. Though I like how you can choose the pantheon to better fit the environment of your civilization, religion in the game merely consists of earning Great Prophet points (supplemented with prayers), purchasing religious units (not much variety at that) with Faith, and spread through spending charges/"debating" other religions. I don't know if the developers purposefully simplified the mechanics to avoid stepping on politically sensitive toes but I would argue that it completely ignores the nuances of such an important part of the human experience. If they wanted to use the combat mechanics for religious units, I'd prefer if they lean into it more to create a super-unit of some sort through EXP and promotion, where they'd be like a charismatic/influential believer that has tested their faith through numerous debates. Lack of other Great People for religion is a little disappointing as well.

 

[Duke William of Normandy]

I had another musing about the religion system. Though I like how you can choose the pantheon to better fit the environment of your civilization, religion in the game merely consists of earning Great Prophet points (supplemented with prayers), purchasing religious units (not much variety at that) with Faith, and spread through spending charges/"debating" other religions. I don't know if the developers purposefully simplified the mechanics to avoid stepping on politically sensitive toes but I would argue that it completely ignores the nuances of such an important part of the human experience. If they wanted to use the combat mechanics for religious units, I'd prefer if they lean into it more to create a super-unit of some sort through EXP and promotion, where they'd be like a charismatic/influential believer that has tested their faith through numerous debates. Lack of other Great People for religion is a little disappointing as well.

Check out @Boa's Mod Productions' idea for late-game Religion. It's a work-in-progress, but it has many good ideas.

https://forums.civfanatics.com/thre...-game-religion-suggestions-future-mod.665108/

 

[anonxanemone]

Check out @Boa's Mod Productions' idea for late-game Religion. It's a work-in-progress, but it has many good ideas.

https://forums.civfanatics.com/thre...-game-religion-suggestions-future-mod.665108/

Thank you! This is immensely exciting while simultaneously saddening as I possibly won't be able to enjoy the mod even at its future release. Woes of playing on the Switch where modding is frowned upon by Nintendo.

 

[Duke William of Normandy]

Thank you! This is immensely exciting while simultaneously saddening as I possibly won't be able to enjoy the mod even at its future release. Woes of playing on the Switch where modding is frowned upon by Nintendo.

Well... that somewhat vindicates Firaxis for not enabling mods on the Switch.