Historical paths problem

[stealth_nsk]

So, from yesterday's stream we know what:

1. Each civilization has "historical path" - next most logical civilization to go (we pretty much knew it already, just not in those terms)
2. AI follows this historical path, if possible. Since human players chose civilizations first, they could take away the civs

So, this causes a couple of problems:

First, the paths become weird. They are designed to be unique, which means if exploration age civilization is set as a historical path for one civ, it can't be normally used for another civ. For example, Rome's historical path is Normans, not Byzantium - the most likely reason is what Byzantium is a historical path for Greece. I think Egypt goes to Songhai not Arabia for the same reason - most likely Arabia is a historical path for Axum.

Second is bigger problem. If AI always chooses historical path civilizations when available, you'll almost never play against civilizations which aren't part of the historical path. Your only hope is to take away someone's historical path and hope they'll chose one of the rare civs. We know 100% Shawnee are not part of historical path (as they are optional, they can't continue any default civ). So, you get cool civ as preorder bonus and could play as them, but you'll never play against them. It's possible where other civs which aren't part of historical paths as well, like Mongolia.

So, unless I miss something here, the feature of AI civilizations always following their historical paths looks really bad to me. I'd probably prefer seeing weird civ transitions by AI, but have Byzantium open for Rome and Shawnee appearing in the game.

 

[Olle Wernersson]

you'll almost never play against civilizations which aren't part of the historical path.

I wouldn't jump to conclusions. We don't know how many civilizations exist that aren't part of any historical path, and we can't be certain if the AI will choose the same path every time, or if there's more of an 85% chance per era.

EDIT: A Developer has said that the AI will always play the historical path

 

[user330977]

The Romans becoming Normans is just bizarre. Byzantium is the glaringly obvious choice but cases, albeit strained, could also be made for France, Spain, Italy, Romanians etc. Instead, Firaxis choose francified Vikings to represent the next era of Rome, who would then presumably evolve into Britain. Truly bizarre choices.

 

[Olle Wernersson]

The Romans becoming Normans is just bizarre.

I like to think of this, as Olleus mentioned, not as playing as the historical Romans but as a fictional Roman Empire that shares some characteristics with the historical one. The transition from a fictional Roman Empire to a fictional Norman Empire can be seen as a scenario where, in this fictional world, an empire with traits similar to the historical Roman Empire evolves into one with characteristics associated with the historical Normans.

 

[Nikolai II]

I wouldn't jump to conclusions. We don't know how many civilizations exist that aren't part of any historical path, and we can't be certain if the AI will choose the same path every time, or if there's more of an 85% chance per era.

This.

 

[ColtSeavers]

So, from yesterday's stream we know what:

1. Each civilization has "historical path" - next most logical civilization to go (we pretty much knew it already, just not in those terms)
2. AI follows this historical path, if possible. Since human players chose civilizations first, they could take away the civs

So, this causes a couple of problems:

First, the paths become weird. They are designed to be unique, which means if exploration age civilization is set as a historical path for one civ, it can't be normally used for another civ. For example, Rome's historical path is Normans, not Byzantium - the most likely reason is what Byzantium is a historical path for Greece. I think Egypt goes to Songhai not Arabia for the same reason - most likely Arabia is a historical path for Axum.

Second is bigger problem. If AI always chooses historical path civilizations when available, you'll almost never play against civilizations which aren't part of the historical path. Your only hope is to take away someone's historical path and hope they'll chose one of the rare civs. We know 100% Shawnee are not part of historical path (as they are optional, they can't continue any default civ). So, you get cool civ as preorder bonus and could play as them, but you'll never play against them. It's possible where other civs which aren't part of historical paths as well, like Mongolia.

So, unless I miss something here, the feature of AI civilizations always following their historical paths looks really bad to me. I'd probably prefer seeing weird civ transitions by AI, but have Byzantium open for Rome and Shawnee appearing in the game.

I'm pretty sure, there will be a historical path for every Civ, including the Shawnee. If not, they will certainly set up some other way to have them appear as AI int the game. Having at least the option to play with a straight historical paths for you and the AI, is huge for a lot a of players though!

 

[user330977]

I like to think of this, as Olleus mentioned, not as playing as the historical Romans but as a fictional Roman Empire that shares some characteristics with the historical one. The transition from a fictional Roman Empire to a fictional Norman Empire can be seen as a scenario where, in this fictional world, an empire with traits similar to the historical Roman Empire evolves into one with characteristics associated with the historical Normans.

The problem, at least for me, is it's stretching believability to an absurd level. The Normans and Romans were very different culturally and linguistically and originated from completely separate areas of the earth. I get the "it's fictional" argument, but at this point we may as well just call the civs the Fabbaloozian and Jinxapovian empires for all the relation they have to their real-word counterparts.

 

[Kev1916]

The Romans becoming Normans is just bizarre. Byzantium is the glaringly obvious choice but cases, albeit strained, could also be made for France, Spain, Italy, Romanians etc. Instead, Firaxis choose francified Vikings to represent the next era of Rome, who would then presumably evolve into Britain. Truly bizarre choices.

Totally it's going to be weird and had this before, Britain aint a country

 

[user330977]

Totally it's going to be weird and had this before, Britain aint a country

Britain is commonly accepted alternative to saying the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, which very much is a country.

 

[stealth_nsk]

I wouldn't jump to conclusions. We don't know how many civilizations exist that aren't part of any historical path, and we can't be certain if the AI will choose the same path every time, or if there's more of an 85% chance per era.

The exact quote from Dennis Shirk is: "if the option is available, they will always play the historic route"

 

[stealth_nsk]

I'm pretty sure, there will be a historical path for every Civ, including the Shawnee. If not, they will certainly set up some other way to have them appear as AI int the game. Having at least the option to play with a straight historical paths for you and the AI, is huge for a lot a of players though!

How do you see it? After the game launch half of the players will have access to Shawnee and other part don't. So, either there will be gap in historic path for players who don't own this bonus, or (more likely) Shawnee just will not be in the historical path

 

[pokiehl]

I have no problem with civ switching or “unrealistic” choices.

I do hope there is some sort of toggle that makes the AI deviate from the historical choice. I think that will spice games up and keep things interesting.

 

[ColtSeavers]

How do you see it? After the game launch half of the players will have access to Shawnee and other part don't. So, either there will be gap in historic path for players who don't own this bonus, or (more likely) Shawnee just will not be in the historical path

I guess the Shawnee will be available to the other players too, eventually. Until then, players who don't own them might have a gap in that historic path, not sure if that would be very problmatic, though? Same could happen later, if people decide not to to buy the expansions. For them, some historical paths would also be "empty".

 

[Mr Jon of Cheam]

The Romans becoming Normans is just bizarre. Byzantium is the glaringly obvious choice but cases, albeit strained, could also be made for France, Spain, Italy, Romanians etc. Instead, Firaxis choose francified Vikings to represent the next era of Rome, who would then presumably evolve into Britain. Truly bizarre choices.

What makes you think that there is only one historical path for Rome?

 

[Siddorm]

I am imagining that the civ switching and/or historical paths will not be ideal. However, if it makes the game easier for them to develop, balance, code AI etc., then it should result in a better game overall.
My main concern is that they might split up civs etc. into various DLCs, such that customers need to buy numerous products to get a coherent body of content.

 

[Krikkit1]

So, from yesterday's stream we know what:

1. Each civilization has "historical path" - next most logical civilization to go (we pretty much knew it already, just not in those terms)
2. AI follows this historical path, if possible. Since human players chose civilizations first, they could take away the civs

So, this causes a couple of problems:

First, the paths become weird. They are designed to be unique, which means if exploration age civilization is set as a historical path for one civ, it can't be normally used for another civ. For example, Rome's historical path is Normans, not Byzantium - the most likely reason is what Byzantium is a historical path for Greece. I think Egypt goes to Songhai not Arabia for the same reason - most likely Arabia is a historical path for Axum.

Second is bigger problem. If AI always chooses historical path civilizations when available, you'll almost never play against civilizations which aren't part of the historical path. Your only hope is to take away someone's historical path and hope they'll chose one of the rare civs. We know 100% Shawnee are not part of historical path (as they are optional, they can't continue any default civ). So, you get cool civ as preorder bonus and could play as them, but you'll never play against them. It's possible where other civs which aren't part of historical paths as well, like Mongolia.

So, unless I miss something here, the feature of AI civilizations always following their historical paths looks really bad to me. I'd probably prefer seeing weird civ transitions by AI, but have Byzantium open for Rome and Shawnee appearing in the game.

There definitely needs to be an option
(x) AI prioritizes historical civs
….(default on)

Totally it's going to be weird and had this before, Britain aint a country

Rome wasn’t a country either, neither was Greece.

 

[AntSou]

The Romans becoming Normans is just bizarre. Byzantium is the glaringly obvious choice but cases, albeit strained, could also be made for France, Spain, Italy, Romanians etc. Instead, Firaxis choose francified Vikings to represent the next era of Rome, who would then presumably evolve into Britain. Truly bizarre choices.

That's just one route leading into France. And I don't find it bizarre given how much they adopted. There's just sufficient overlap for me to work. It's easy to imagine them as late Normans speaking an offshoot of latin.

Rome will also lead into Bizantium, and other Northern European cultures will lead into Normans.

I expect several routes available to Rome at release, and at least one more route available as an antecedent to Normans.

 

[Leyrann]

Civs might have multiple historical paths. I wouldn't be surprised if Rome could evolve into the Normans or Byzantium or say, Spain or the Holy Roman Empire. In fact, didn't they explicitly say in the stream that there were multiple historical paths towards certain civs, with the (theoretical, they stressed) examples of the Gauls or Franks as other precursors to the Normans.

Also, I'm hoping that there will be an option to allow us to switch off historical civ preference for AI. I do fully agree with it being on by default, but both should be an option imo.

 

[Roald Amundsen]

Let's just hope there is an option to make AI's pick a new Civ that is "slightly up" or "slightly down" on the decision tree. Perhaps also an option for them to just go crazy and pick more radical choces based on end game state or whatever.

 

[Kev1916]

Britain is commonly accepted alternative to saying the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, which very much is a country.

In your game maybe but aye whatever you enjoy your day. o and "Northern Ireland " is Na Sé Chontae