Historical paths problem

[ColtSeavers]

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.

I guess that would be too complicated for the AI to handle.

 

[Kev1916]

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

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

That's the point "Britain" is not a country - In the game Civ let's just keep it to England and one day Scotland

 

[AntSou]

@Ita Bear btw, they are going for both cultural and geographical overlap. That became clear in the presentation.

They used the specific example of London using maps, showing the alterations to the city planning during the Roman, Norman and British period.

This might mean, for instance, that North American tribes can develop into the United States.

 

[cinattra]

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.

True. Some Civs truly made a historical mark. I don't think anyone would honestly be against Rome having two if not three historical paths. If a multiple paths exists or could exist then Egypt should definitely get an extra historical path as well. If we are married to this culture switching we may as well go all in with it.

 

[AntSou]

That's the point "Britain" is not a country - In the game Civ let's just keep it to England and one day Scotland

How is it not a country? At best it is not a nation, but even that might be a stretch 300 years after the union. Isn't Britishness the overarching identity for many (the majority?) of Northern Irish?

 

[Krikkit1]

That's the point "Britain" is not a country - In the game Civ let's just keep it to England and one day Scotland

The game is not countries, it is Civilization

Not countries
Rome, a city and empire
Greek, a region (not sure Alexanders empire was called Greek at the time)
Maya, a people group with multiple “countries”
etc
etc
America, a pair of continents
Britain, a region and an empire

No countries here

 

[Siptah]

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.

While there is probably just one default path, we have already seen that there can be multiple historical/regional unlocks with Egypt having Abbasids and Songhai. So, I guess Rome should unlock Normand (great choice imho), Spain, and Abbasids from the so far known civs. If we later get Umayyads, Byzantium, HRE, Genoa, Venice, Papal States, Tunis, etc. those should be unlocked as well. It doesn‘t make sense to me to limit good options for more gameplay balance in that case tbh. I guess in MP it should be more open anyway.

Similarly, I think Greece should unlock all later civs that are build on Hellenistic foundations in some form.

 

[AntSou]

The game is not countries, it is Civilization

Not countries
Rome, a city and empire
Greek, a region (not sure Alexanders empire was called Greek at the time)
Maya, a people group with multiple “countries”
etc
etc
America, a pair of continents
Britain, a region and an empire

No countries here

In what sense is Canada a "Civilization" then? It stretches the meaning of the word. It is a country, like many others that were in the game.

You're getting down a path that is not worth arguing over and that is disproven by the choices available in previous games.

 

[user330977]

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.

The issue is that Normans is the "historical" route that the AI will seemingly most often take. I can see it as a whacky what-if scenario, but as the main historical option I find it very immersion breaking.

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

I'm not sure why this simple fact seems to trigger you so. That may be true, but in English, one of NI's official languages and this forum's only permitted language, its name is Northern Ireland.

 

[Kaan Boztepe]

did the devs spoke about 3 choices being the absolute limit ? can for example Rome get 10 historical choices and 10 achievement choices and 10 random ones ?

 

[Mr Jon of Cheam]

did the devs spoke about 3 choices being the absolute limit ? can for example Rome get 10 historical choices and 10 achievement choices and 10 random ones ?

Yes, I think they said that there could be lots of options.

 

[pokiehl]

The issue is that Normans is the "historical" route that the AI will seemingly most often take. I can see it as a whacky what-if scenario, but as the main historical option I find it very immersion breaking.

They never said that Roman —> Norman was the set historical path, I think.

I also think it’s immersion breaking to you at face value now because it’s new and you’ve never played the game. But in actual concept it seems no more immersion breaking than Gandhi in 4000 BC building the pyramids.

As they said themselves at the Q&A yesterday, Civ isn’t a history simulator right?

 

[TheSpaceCowboy]

Here’s how AI civilization path progression should work.
In the Advanced Game Set-up, there should be multiple path progression options:

Historical - This is the default. Each civ has a ranked list of two or more civs from the next era which it relates to historically or, barring that, through geographic proximity. If these aren’t available, it picks the civ associated with its leader, with a last resort being any random civ it unlocked.
Leader - Civs will progress to the civ associated with their leader. If that’s unavailable, they go to their historical civs in order of ranking, with a last resort being any random civ it unlocked.
Random - Civs will progress to any available civ
Player choice (single player only) - The player picks the progression of each civ when moving to the next Age

 

[user330977]

They never said that Roman —> Norman was the set historical path, I think.

I also think it’s immersion breaking to you at face value now because it’s new and you’ve never played the game. But in actual concept it seems no more immersion breaking than Gandhi in 4000 BC building the pyramids.

As they said themselves at the Q&A yesterday, Civ isn’t a history simulator right?

Now we have Gandhi in 4000 BC building the pyramids and then evolving into Japan. It's even MORE immersion breaking.

 

[zaint]

So the roman civilization from southern Europe somehow becomes Normans who have their origin from the Viking tribes of Scandinavia? The origin of Normans is even in the name "Norsemen". Does Firaxis historical expert smoke crack?

Rome => Papal states => Italy would be more logical path when it comes to Rome. This non-historical paths that they are creating is getting more and more ridiculous.

 

[pokiehl]

Now we have Gandhi in 4000 BC building the pyramids and then evolving into Japan. It's even MORE immersion breaking.

If civ switching is a bridge too far for you to like the game, fair enough. No game can be for everybody.

But to me, it’s just no less ridiculous than all of the other aspects of the games we’ve enjoyed for decades. I think civ switching and the ages system are going to facilitate the most civ variety we’ve ever had and keep the game interesting for longer. I’m really excited for their ideas.

 

[AntSou]

The issue is that Normans is the "historical" route that the AI will seemingly most often take. I can see it as a whacky what-if scenario, but as the main historical option I find it very immersion breaking.

There will be more than one historical path available, and the AI should select from those if you set that preference when setting up the game (I assume there will also be a game option to set it to random, or some other thing).

Now we have Gandhi in 4000 BC building the pyramids and then evolving into Japan. It's even MORE immersion breaking.

It won't evolve into Japan unless you as the player select it, or if you are not playing with historical settings.

 

[user330977]

If civ switching is a bridge too far for you to like the game, fair enough. No game can be for everybody.

But to me, it’s just no less ridiculous than all of the other aspects of the games we’ve enjoyed for decades. I think civ switching and the ages system are going to facilitate the most civ variety we’ve ever had and keep the game interesting for longer. I’m really excited for their ideas.

I'm happy to wait and see it in practice before judging too harshly, but I really dislike the "you must evolve your civ now because we said so" approach. I like alt-history as much as anyone, but good alt-history still has roots in plausibility.

 

[Mr Jon of Cheam]

So the roman civilization from southern Europe somehow becomes Normans who have their origin from the Viking tribes of Scandinavia? The origin of Normans is even in the name "Norsemen". Does Firaxis historical expert smoke crack?

Rome => Papal states => Italy would be more logical path when it comes to Rome. This non-historical paths that they are creating is getting more and more ridiculous.

Again, what makes you think that Rome will only have one historical path?

And I think you can frame it differently. Yes, the Normans and Romans have different origins. But the Normans did rule plenty of land that was once ruled by the Romans; in the game itself, you become a new civilization in control of the settlements and land that was once ruled by another civilization.

Edit: and it should be noted, that there is nothing ahistorical about representing the history of Britain as Romans > Normans > Britain. Yes, it's simplified, but way more interesting and accurate than simply having "England" exist from 4000BC to the present.

 

[user330977]

There will be more than one historical path available, and the AI should select from those if you set that preference when setting up the game (I assume there will also be a game option to set it to random, or some other thing).


It won't evolve into Japan unless you as the player select it, or if you are not playing with historical settings.

The "historical" options for India are just as immersion breaking, if not downright offensive.