How would you solve the snowballing & endgame problem?

[Boris Gudenuf]

If every other civ has a tech, and you have a declaration of friendship with any of them, you should (slowly?)acquire that tech even without researching it.

The key to Tech (and other) Diffusion historically seems to have been Trade. The early pastoral groups all traded with each other from the Ukraine to Mongolia, and so the spoked wheel chariot was invented by the Sintashta Culture and spread from eastern Europe to China and south into the Middle East: ten thousand and more kilometers of distance and through multiple groups, within a few centuries. Chinese metal casting techniques seem to have spread along the Silk Road to Europe and the Caucasus (and then south into the Middle East) along with Gunpowder, while as soon as the Europeans came calling in China to trade directly with them (by-passing the old overland Silk Road) by sea, teh Chinese started acquiring the better European muskets and naval cannon (they were 'reverse engineering both arquebuses and long naval guns within a few years, and improving on the cannon because tgheir basic iron and bronze casting techniques were superior)

 

[Zaarin]

here was even a black Emperor, so as a citizen of Rome you could climb as high as you could imagine.

If we're talking Septimius Severus, he was Punic on his mother's side and Latin on his father's, which isn't what most modern people would call black, i.e., Subsaharan African.

The Persians established the original multi-ethnic, multi-cultural Empire by sheer Tolerance. Don't revolt, pay your taxes, let the Persians handle all the military stuff, and you were left alone - but like Rome a little later, had the benefit of being able to trade from Egypt to India.

Or as Darius more colorfully put it, "A virgin could safely walk alone carrying a basket of gold from one end of my empire to the other. By the way, I'm very honest. Have I mentioned my honesty lately? I'm very honest. I certainly didn't usurp the throne because I'm very, very trustworthy." I may have paraphrased slightly, but it wouldn't be a Darius inscription if he didn't mention his honesty.

 

[BuchiTaton]

"Exhaustion" is pretty generic: Alexander's troops turned back (and forced him to lead them back) because His war aims did not match theirs - they had conquered the Persians, that was the original Ultimate Goal, but he kept on going. Mismatch of Stated War Goals and expectations. Could even be part of your second one: The relationship between the Causus Belli and Aims versus the Civics/Social Policy of the Civ no longer matched at all.

The game need abstractions and clear rules. Exhaustation and/or moral could be a % than say you how long and how well would your troops fight (maybe your people would start to revolt).
+ Moral from militaristic civics* defensive, economic gain, different culture/religion, close to home, recent victories, etc.
- Moral from humanist civics* offensive, economic loss, shared culture/religion, far away, etc.

*Obviously militaristis would enjoy being offensive while humanists would still have huge moral with just causes like defend themselves or an ally.

Rome's Secret Weapon was Roman Citizenship, which was, after some delay, open to Everyone, and had so many economic and Legal benefits attached that it was worth striving for - here was even a black Emperor, so as a citizen of Rome you could climb as high as you could imagine. The road network and transpotation in general simply made it possible to get economic gains frm trading within a huge trade network stretching from Britain and Spain to Mesopotamia and North Africa.

The Persians established the original multi-ethnic, multi-cultural Empire by sheer Tolerance. Don't revolt, pay your taxes, let the Persians handle all the military stuff, and you were left alone - but like Rome a little later, had the benefit of being able to trade from Egypt to India.

The Arabs and Spanish both had the benefit of aggressive Religions which encompassed a great deal of Universalism: just like being a Roman Citizen, once you converted to Catholic Christianity or Islam, you got all the benefits of being part of a huge Empire just as if you and your family had been members forever. That was powerfully Inclusive.

The Mongols, by contrast, suffered from Cultural Exclusiveness. If you weren't a Steppe pastoral rider, you were a Second Class citizen, regardless of any other thing about you and your people. No Inclusiveness at all, so the only part of their Empire that lasted was the Golden or Great Horde on the southern Russian/Ulranian steppes, where the population as all pastoral riders.

Well the game need civs that exploit different aspects of the mechanics.

On popular mind Romans are clearly linked to early forms of mass entertaiment and the luxuries from all around and beyond the empire that whealty citizens could enjoy. I mean even the cliché of the "slave gladiator that brought his liberty" is know by everybody. Being the "amenities civ" is too perfect to let it go, more if manage POP become and relevant part of the game.

Persian could use the Satrapies as a form of UB that when build on a city with majority of a different culture (non-persian) provide more lovalty of any POP with that culture on your empire. That way you have a motivation to conquer cities of different cultures (by the way cultures with high lovalty would give bonus).

Spanish would have the Reducciones UI that religious/cultural convert POPs from minor civs (barbarians/city states). They added most catholics that anybody on history and Spanish are now one of the languages with more native speakers, also must remember that spanish colonies become independent within foreing intervention (Napoleonic wars/American war). I think that say us who should be the top "conversion civ".

Mongols could exploit the barbarians with a unique great people the Khan who gains the loyalty of barbarian camps to spam warriors and give bigger bonus the most victories achieve. So you have a civ that do better the more you are at war but would be on danger with prolonged peace.

They could sound too obvious or not a proper representation of real history but CIV series could not turn on a historical simulator.

 

[PiR]

The key to Tech (and other) Diffusion historically seems to have been Trade.

One of the few things I actually miss from Civ V. I thought the science bonus from trade routes, depending on techs owned by both sides, was a good idea!

 

[Krajzen]

I think games like this would really benefit from solitting tech into four categories:
- early technology
- industrial technology
- culture and ohilosoohy
- natural science


Early technology should spread between civs somewhat quickly, especially if they trade or fight each other. The advantage you have when being ahead still exists, it just has to be exploited quickly. When medieval Germans were doing crusades in Baltic states they initially had massive tech advantage thanks to, among other things, siege weapons. But after some decades even as, with all resoect, backwards nations as Baltic oagan tribes learned how to build their own siege engines. They have even sent their agents to the west to learn that. And we are talking about very complex tech for that era, and very unorganized tribal group! Similarly American Indians fairly quickly learned to be amazing horsemen.
Olease note that early tech diffusing quickly would especially help againat snowballing trend of "by the medieval era you have clear runaways". It is more important than diffusion of late game tech.

Industrial technology (which I mean actually starting in the early modern era - galleons and guns required a lot of know - how) should also diffuse in terns of sheer awareness, AND countries should be able to buy from others advanced weapons they can't produce themselves. But the real pain should be the ability to build those things yourself, because they require some sort of advanced manufacturing facilities, a ton of money and educated workforce (well that last oart is orobably too much detail for 4X game).

Culture and philosophy and natural science would be the most similar to the way tech tree works now, because to research them you need a ton of great scientific infrastructure, and they diffuse slowly (ohilosoohy) or barely at all (natural science) if your culture isn't very welcoming to new revolutionary ideas. Having common religion should help diffusing the former greatly, but not so much in the latter case.


So, the result is so it is hard to become extreme tech runaway across earlier eras, especially in military, but indistrialization and modern higher education are very crucial to enable significant orogress in later eras. And even small, underdog nations can overwhelm big ones in later eras if they create industrial and university network much faster and much better.

I also tried to make this system as simple and general as possible.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

. . . They could sound too obvious or not a proper representation of real history but CIV series could not turn on a historical simulator.

Dog Knows, I'm as historically-minded as anyone on these forums, but in this I agree completely. I've 'played' Historical Simulations, and they were Not Fun.

On the other hand, if we don't get the historical basis right, we end up with strange things happening in the game. Here we are, I think, talking about Uniques for specific Civs (Rome, Persia, Early Modern Spain, etc) or types of Civs (Pastoral Aggressors) relating to their ability or inability to maintain a conquered Empire, and it pays to get the basis right, even if in game we are going to Abstract it almost completely for the sake of playability.

For example, making Rome an 'Amenity' based Civ has to be carefully handled, because the 'amenities' in this case was primarily the access to a huge Trade Network: Amber from the Baltic, Iron from the Balkans, Spices from India, Silk from the Han, etc. The Circuses part of Bread and Circuses never saved any Emperor who failed to provide the Bread part, and so Rome depopulated rapidly once the great grain trade from North Africa and Egypt was cut off.

And, of course, the Cultural side of Roman Amenities is all Borrowed: Gladiatorial games from the Etruscan funeral rites along with Hippodrome-like horse/chariot races, theatre from the Greeks (and Roman theatre, except for Plautus and company's Low Comedy, was pretty anemic compared to classical Greece's) - Rome's 'genius' was to take the original models from foreigners and massively expand their impact in scale, which could be (in game) related to their Engineering: nobody else tried to build race tracks or arenas on the sheer scale of size and numbers that Rome did, and some of the resulting architectural achievements were both Iconic and Singular.

If we're talking Septimius Severus, he was Punic on his mother's side and Latin on his father's, which isn't what most modern people would call black, i.e., Subsaharan African.


Or as Darius more colorfully put it, "A virgin could safely walk alone carrying a basket of gold from one end of my empire to the other. By the way, I'm very honest. Have I mentioned my honesty lately? I'm very honest. I certainly didn't usurp the throne because I'm very, very trustworthy." I may have paraphrased slightly, but it wouldn't be a Darius inscription if he didn't mention his honesty.

Thanks for the correction on Septimus: in fact, the Romans made a distinction between Black African and North African, using 'Aethiope' for the former and 'African' for the latter and not, as later Europeans frequently did, confusing the two (as I did!).

As for Darius, note that the same quote about the safety of gold and virgins was also attributed to Genghis Khan's Empire as an indication of safety within the state - or the stark terror inspired by the government's reaction to anyone breaking the peace. I don't think Darius' protestations of Honesty are any more fervent than the average modern politician's - or any more believable . . .

 

[BuchiTaton]

On the other hand, if we don't get the historical basis right, we end up with strange things happening in the game. Here we are, I think, talking about Uniques for specific Civs (Rome, Persia, Early Modern Spain, etc) or types of Civs (Pastoral Aggressors) relating to their ability or inability to maintain a conquered Empire, and it pays to get the basis right, even if in game we are going to Abstract it almost completely for the sake of playability.

For example, making Rome an 'Amenity' based Civ has to be carefully handled, because the 'amenities' in this case was primarily the access to a huge Trade Network: Amber from the Baltic, Iron from the Balkans, Spices from India, Silk from the Han, etc. The Circuses part of Bread and Circuses never saved any Emperor who failed to provide the Bread part, and so Rome depopulated rapidly once the great grain trade from North Africa and Egypt was cut off.

This is why the whole picture is a synergy between civ bonus, UU and UB. For Romans could be amenities+Legion+Triumphal Arch.

1- Legion conquer a city with X luxury > Legion build fort and roads to your empire.
2- Put a Triuphal Arch in the conquered city > Triumphal Arch provide bonus to Entertaiment district (local) and multiply luxuries for cities (global) likend by trade+road.

So you have a motivation to conquer for more luxuries, build roads to distribute them, plus entertaiment for your cities. While naval, foreing trade focus or gain much money from them could be saved for others traditional trade civs like the Dutch, Phoenicians, Portuguese, etc.

Even the part of the bread from North Africa is covered since this design need a proper network for your empire, lose it or get blocked and your cities would start to lose the bonus from the goods on those regions.

And, of course, the Cultural side of Roman Amenities is all Borrowed: Gladiatorial games from the Etruscan funeral rites along with Hippodrome-like horse/chariot races, theatre from the Greeks (and Roman theatre, except for Plautus and company's Low Comedy, was pretty anemic compared to classical Greece's) - Rome's 'genius' was to take the original models from foreigners and massively expand their impact in scale, which could be (in game) related to their Engineering: nobody else tried to build race tracks or arenas on the sheer scale of size and numbers that Rome did, and some of the resulting architectural achievements were both Iconic and Singular.

Now the real questions are:
Would be a playable Etruscan civ on game?
There are not others better in-game focus designs that Greeks could use?

 

[Zaarin]

Would be a playable Etruscan civ on game?

An Etruscan civ is just on the margin of possibility: we know just enough about them for it to be possible albeit difficult. I think the better question is should we? I think an Etruscan civ would be interesting, but I don't think it's a high priority.

 

[BuchiTaton]

An Etruscan civ is just on the margin of possibility: we know just enough about them for it to be possible albeit difficult. I think the better question is should we? I think an Etruscan civ would be interesting, but I don't think it's a high priority.

I would prefer an Etruscan civ over an Italian civ just because I am a big fan of the most ancient civs you could find for any region. I like that feeling of start from the origins with really unique culture, religion and languages.

Sadly everybody talk about an Italian civ but for Etruscans almost never.

 

[Zaarin]

I would prefer an Etruscan civ over an Italian civ just because I am a big fan of the most ancient civs you could find for any region. I like that feeling of start from the origins with really unique culture, religion and languages.

Sadly everybody talk about an Italian civ but for Etruscans almost never.

Personally, same, but I expect we'll see another Italian city-state civ long before anyone thinks of adding Etruria. TBH, though, I'd rather have, say, Elam or Urartu when it comes to somewhat obscure ancient civs.

 

[Krajzen]

Do Etruscans have a decent leader for civ standards? Because you know, it's much smaller issue to add such 'mostly archeological' cultures to leaderless games like Humankind. In fact I think they'll arrive here, seeing how this game really needs some more ancient Euro cultures... I'd like to see them in Humankind's context of factions being era - restricted while also more numerous in general, but if we are talking about civ model of battle royale from all ages at once then Etruscans are simply too 'abstract' (lacking distinctive flavour) for an average player to be high on priority lists, and they are utterly beaten by Italians due to the vast instantly emotionally recognizable legacy of the latter.

 

[Zaarin]

Do Etruscans have a decent leader for civ standards?

They have some options. Lucius Tarquinius Priscus (Tarquin the Elder) is the most obvious choice, but I might choose his wife, the prophetess Tanaquil, who was a potent political force in the reign of her husband and her sons--not unlike Catherine de Medici or Eleanor of Aquitaine. However, I agree with you that an Etruscan civ is unlikely and a rather low priority, as interesting as it might be. I also agree that it's a prime choice for Humankind, along with the Minoans.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Do Etruscans have a decent leader for civ standards? Because you know, it's much smaller issue to add such 'mostly archeological' cultures to leaderless games like Humankind. In fact I think they'll arrive here, seeing how this game really needs some more ancient Euro cultures... I'd like to see them in Humankind's context of factions being era - restricted while also more numerous in general, but if we are talking about civ model of battle royale from all ages at once then Etruscans are simply too 'abstract' (lacking distinctive flavour) for an average player to be high on priority lists, and they are utterly beaten by Italians due to the vast instantly emotionally recognizable legacy of the latter.

There are two main problems and one (to me) minor one with the Etruscans as a playable Civ in Civilization:
1. Many of the aspects of the Etruscan civilization were adopted by Rome, so that Etruscan Uniques will have to be carefully crafted to avoid looking like a carbon copy of Roman Civ: gladiatorial games, hippodrome-based chariot races, etc. Also, most of the Etruscan names of Kings we have are from Greek or Roman texts, so they are going to look and sound Greek or Roman! Good example of that is the name 'Etruscan' which is Latin: they called themselves Rasenna or Rasna, while the Greeks called them Turrhenoi or Tyrrhenians.
2. Which brings us to the Etruscan Rulers. There are a lot of existing names of Etruscan kings/rulers, but, as one historian put it, they exist "in a vacuum" - we have the names, but except for the Etruscan kings of Rome (for which later Roman writers gave us plenty of negative qualities), we know nothing about what kind of rulers they were. That's going to make it hard to 'personalize' them as Civ requires.
3. The minor problem (to me) is the Etruscan language. It was written in a modified early Greek alphabet but was not an Indo-European language and most of it is still untranslated. Making up an accurate 'Etruscan' dialogue for an animated Etruscan King is going to be extremely conjectural, if possible at all.

 

[Zaarin]

3. The minor problem (to me) is the Etruscan language. It was written in a modified early Greek alphabet but was not an Indo-European language and most of it is still untranslated. Making up an accurate 'Etruscan' dialogue for an animated Etruscan King is going to be extremely conjectural, if possible at all.

Good progress has been made in the past decade or so in deciphering the Etruscan language. We have a good idea what it sounded like and have a decent vocabulary...of nouns. And this is the part where it gets sketchy: verbs and verbal grammar are very poorly attested. This puts a limit on potential dialogue without some very creative writing.

(By the way, after hearing the reconstructed Gaulish they used for the dialogue of Ambiorix, please, Firaxis, hit me up. I'd be delighted to write some reconstructed Phoenician dialogue for Dido in Civ7 that isn't Israeli Hebrew with an accent and some archaic touches. )

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Good progress has been made in the past decade or so in deciphering the Etruscan language. We have a good idea what it sounded like and have a decent vocabulary...of nouns. And this is the part where it gets sketchy: verbs and verbal grammar are very poorly attested. This puts a limit on potential dialogue without some very creative writing.

(By the way, after hearing the reconstructed Gaulish they used for the dialogue of Ambiorix, please, Firaxis, hit me up. I'd be delighted to write some reconstructed Phoenician dialogue for Dido in Civ7 that isn't Israeli Hebrew with an accent and some archaic touches. )

My understanding is that the bulk of the surviving written Etruscan is inscriptions and grave markers, so lots of personal names, very few complete sentences. The fact that it was written in an early Greek alphabet makes it possible to roughly decipher the sounds used, but unfortunately, that's still a long way rom the basic phrases needed for a Civ Leader . . .

There is so much going on in history and archeology now that almost anything we say about ancient, classical, or medieval cultures is subject to revision At Any Moment. I just read a citation from a new book (2021) by a German author that apparently is a summary of the latest DNA tracking of ancient peoples. From that it appears that the old debate about where the Etruscans came from is finally nailed down: their DNA is related to Basque, Cornish and Breton - the earliest (surviving) people in Europe, with some Steppe/Central Asian 'bits' - in other words, they were in Europe before agriculture was imported (with farmers) from Anatolia and the Indo-Europeans arrived from the eastern Ukraine.

 

[Zaarin]

There is so much going on in history and archeology now that almost anything we say about ancient, classical, or medieval cultures is subject to revision At Any Moment. I just read a citation from a new book (2021) by a German author that apparently is a summary of the latest DNA tracking of ancient peoples. From that it appears that the old debate about where the Etruscans came from is finally nailed down: their DNA is related to Basque, Cornish and Breton - the earliest (surviving) people in Europe, with some Steppe/Central Asian 'bits' - in other words, they were in Europe before agriculture was imported (with farmers) from Anatolia and the Indo-Europeans arrived from the eastern Ukraine.

I read that report as well. I think linguists had generally reached the same conclusion based on the locations of the other Tyrsenean languages and the dubious status of Lemnian (with the usual caveat that genes and languages don't necessarily go together), but this more or less puts a nail in the coffin of the theories that the Etruscans were Anatolian refugees. If we had better linguistic evidence, I wouldn't be shocked to learn that many of the Old European languages are related: Basque, Iberian, Etruscan, Pre-Greek, Minoan, the Bronze Age Pre-Celtic British, maybe even Etiocypriot (though its proximity to the Near East makes it just as likely that the Etiocypriots were Asian). At the very least, a relationship between Iberian and Vasconic (Aquitainian and Basque) looks very likely.

My understanding is that the bulk of the surviving written Etruscan is inscriptions and grave markers, so lots of personal names, very few complete sentences.

Yes, Phoenician has the same problem. We have over a thousand inscriptions, but they're mostly short and say either, "Here lies so-and-so, be cursed if you disturb my tomb" or "So-and-so conquered such-and-such; yay! so-and-so." Phoenician does have three advantages over Etruscan, though: 1) an extremely well-attested and closely related sister language, Biblical Hebrew; 2) the long Punic passages that Plautus used for the Punic text in his translation of Poenulus; and 3) the fact that most Phoenician names contain verbs (e.g., Malokbaʿal, "May Baal reign," or the name of our esteemed general, Ḥannibaʿal, "Baal be gracious to me"). (Oh, there's also the fact that one can form grammatically correct stative sentences in Canaanite languages without verbs, which are also attested in names such as ʾaḥīrom, "my brother is exalted," which you might know better in its clipped form Ḥīrom--or better yet its Hebrew form, Ḥīrām, the king of Tyre who sent wood and craftsmen for Solomon's temple.)

 

[criZp]

I think games like this would really benefit from splitting tech into four categories:
- early technology
- industrial technology
- culture and philosoohy
- natural science
Early technology should spread between civs somewhat quickly, especially if they trade or fight each other.

One side effect of this tech diffusion concept is that games would not progress at a fixed speed. If many players go for the same techs there's little diffusion and the game moves slower, if many players go for different techs the game will progress faster due to more tech diffusion. Also it would be natural, but not exactly fair, that players close to the leading civ benefits more from tech diffusion compared to other civs that are on the other side of the world.

 

[PiR]

One side effect of this tech diffusion concept is that games would not progress at a fixed speed. If many players go for the same techs there's little diffusion and the game moves slower, if many players go for different techs the game will progress faster due to more tech diffusion

Well that was already the case in Civ IV when you could trade the tech, or in Civ V when trade would give you science yields based on the difference of techs.

 

[criZp]

Well that was already the case in Civ IV when you could trade the tech, or in Civ V when trade would give you science yields based on the difference of techs.

Yeah that's why they removed tech trading, wasn't it?

 

[PiR]

I don't know why they did that, but I would miss it terribly if there wasn't the Eureka system. For me it wasn't a problem at all.