Little things from prior games that I hope are in Civ 7

[Evie]

No, Mario's brother is Luigi *Mario*, not Luigi Luigi. They wouldn't be the Mario bros otherwise.

No idea who Luigi Luigi is.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

I thought it was the Italian version of the old song "Louie, Louie", but whadda I know . .

 

[Naokaukodem]

No, Mario's brother is Luigi *Mario*, not Luigi Luigi. They wouldn't be the Mario bros otherwise.

And what's the first name of who we call wrongly Mario then ? Tony ??? Macaroni ? Pizza ? Spaghetti ? McHey ?

 

[Patine]

And what's the first name of who we call wrongly Mario then ? Tony ??? Macaroni ? Pizza ? Spaghetti ? McHey ?

He was named by Minoru Arakawa, the then-president of Nintendo's main American branch office, in 1979 or 1980 to placate and make amends by flattery (a long-standing Japanes tradition) Mario Segale, the landlord the U.S. branch of Nintendo leased their building (at the time) from, when he was angry about late payments, naming the previously unnamed character of the prototype game, "Jumpman," as, "Mario," when, "Donkey Kong," released in 1981. The redundant last name was decided years later.

 

[BuchiTaton]

Another example (also from the classical Mediterranian, sorry!) might be the Kingdom of Epirus, which could provide not only a large mercenary army, but also a Great General to lead it - Pyrrhus.

No need to say sorry about classcial and/or mediterranian suggestions, but... can we leave greek states as part of Greece? I think CIV have enough greek representation in everything else.

There are other nice options like Phrygians, Illyrians, Thracians, or what about Lydians with a figure like Croesus. Peltast units, Coinage tech, etc.
Or what about the Minoans, Sherden, Iberians, Etruscans and yes Colchians are a nice option too. There are too many good options to end adding even more greeks
Certainly Greece is a civ that deserve a Great People bonus in their design and Pyrrhus could be a great general, so no need to make Epirus their own thing.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

No need to say sorry about classcial and/or mediterranian suggestions, but... can we leave greek states as part of Greece? I think CIV have enough greek representation in everything else.

There are other nice options like Phrygians, Illyrians, Thracians, or what about Lydians with a figure like Croesus. Peltast units, Coinage tech, etc.
Or what about the Minoans, Sherden, Iberians, Etruscans and yes Colchians are a nice option too. There are too many good options to end adding even more greeks
Certainly Greece is a civ that deserve a Great People bonus in their design and Pyrrhus could be a great general, so no need to make Epirus their own thing.

Had just re-read an account of the Greek Leagues that included Epirus, so it was on my mind.

The point being that there is a long list of 'Civs' that either lack language evidence so that a Leader could be produced for Civ, or were ephemeral in time and space, so just don't fit the multi-city role that Civ assigns to 'real' Civilizations.

As important as they were, city states like Venice and Genoa could fit here, or one of the major Phoenician city states like Tyre.

The Minoans, with (so far!) no translation of their language, along with the Olmecs, would be other very good candidates. Note that there is good evidence that both of those, as powerful as they were for their time and place, appear to have been collections of largely-independent individual Cities with (again, so far!) little evidence of political unity, so NOT giving them an artificial Single Leader as Civ games do to playable Civilizations also makes a certain amount of sense.

There are even 'non-state' actors that could be depicted this way, as Minor Civs. Coxinga (can't remember his real Chinese name at the moment) and his Pirate Entity springs to mind.

 

[reddishrecue]

Had just re-read an account of the Greek Leagues that included Epirus, so it was on my mind.

The point being that there is a long list of 'Civs' that either lack language evidence so that a Leader could be produced for Civ, or were ephemeral in time and space, so just don't fit the multi-city role that Civ assigns to 'real' Civilizations.

As important as they were, city states like Venice and Genoa could fit here, or one of the major Phoenician city states like Tyre.

The Minoans, with (so far!) no translation of their language, along with the Olmecs, would be other very good candidates. Note that there is good evidence that both of those, as powerful as they were for their time and place, appear to have been collections of largely-independent individual Cities with (again, so far!) little evidence of political unity, so NOT giving them an artificial Single Leader as Civ games do to playable Civilizations also makes a certain amount of sense.

There are even 'non-state' actors that could be depicted this way, as Minor Civs. Coxinga (can't remember his real Chinese name at the moment) and his Pirate Entity springs to mind.

The Minoan civilization I heard was destroyed by earthquakes even though they were good at fishing and navy since they were in an island.

 

[Patine]

The Minoans, with (so far!) no translation of their language, along with the Olmecs, would be other very good candidates. Note that there is good evidence that both of those, as powerful as they were for their time and place, appear to have been collections of largely-independent individual Cities with (again, so far!) little evidence of political unity, so NOT giving them an artificial Single Leader as Civ games do to playable Civilizations also makes a certain amount of sense.

The Huari (also spelt Wari), Tiwanaku, and Chimu, "Empires," (at least archaeological studies defaut to the label, "empire," though their form of government is unknown, they did manage to mobilize massive building, agricultural, and road-building projects, and built what seem to be monumental tombs for the elite and temple complexes), which were the big three powers on the Andean Highlands and nearby Pacific Coast prior to the rise of the Quechua-speaking Kingdom of Cuzco, which became the Inca Empire, and the even earlier Norte Chico and Nazca Civilizations in the same general area, would qualify, too. And, definitely, so would the Harrapian/Indus Valley Civilization.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

The Minoan civilization I heard was destroyed by earthquakes even though they were good at fishing and navy since they were in an island.

The 'Minoan Eruption' of Thera, a volcano on Santorini island just north of Crete that took place between 1681 and 1524 BCE, was once credited with 'destroying' the Minoan civilization by dumping feet of volcanic ash all over Crete and devastating food production. That is no longer accepted, because better archeological techniques revealed that the eruption only deposited about 5 mm of ash on the fields, which was quickly washed away by the first rain or wind. Also, Minoan archeological records exist above the ash layer, so the civilization was still alive and kicking after the eruption.
They were conquered by the Myceneans from mainland Greece within the next century or so, but that cannot now be entirely blamed on the volcanism or tsunamis associated with it, even though the eruption is estimated at VEI 6 or 7, making it one of the most powerful of the last 6 - 8000 years. Evidence of its effects are found on ice cores from Greenland, Shang Chinese records, Greek, Egyptian, and Mesopotamian records, but its direct effects on Crete and the Minoans were not as devastating as originally assumed.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

The point being that there is a long list of 'Civs' that either lack language evidence so that a Leader could be produced for Civ, or were ephemeral in time and space, so just don't fit the multi-city role that Civ assigns to 'real' Civilizations.

As important as they were, city states like Venice and Genoa could fit here, or one of the major Phoenician city states like Tyre.

Ironically two of those that you have mentioned have been playable civilaztions (Venice and Phoenicia) and the other (Genoa) seemed to be almost playable.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Ironically two of those that you have mentioned have been playable civilaztions (Venice and Phoenicia) and the other (Genoa) seemed to be almost playable.

Ah, but Venice had to be given a special Unique to try to model its peculiar political/economic structure, and Phoenicia given a semi-mythical Leader because, in fact, there never was a single Leader of the Phoenician cities or, really, any overall political organization to the Phoenician set of city-states.
Genoa was a Mod in Civ V, as I remember, which also had a peculiar Unique, in that it could set up individual owned-tiles almost anywhere that could access Resources for Genoa without actually founding a city or settlement of any kind - a mechanic I've kept in mind, because that kind of 'factory' or trading station could be useful for several other 'Civs' as well!

It also goes to show that there are a host of potential NPMCs out there, only some of which have been discussed and debated at length in these Forums as potential playable Civs . . .

 

[Evie]

Pericles who certainly never was leader of all the greeks is nonetheless a leader of the greek civilization.

I've made the case many times, will make it again, that the fact that civilizations can appear as politically united in game should not carry (and never has carried) the implication that only united polities should be eligible. That a civ leader need not have been a leader of the entire civilization is simply a corollary to that. The in-game situation is covered both by the player-is-not-the-political-leader caveat (that is, the player is at a greater remote than political control level, that does not require unity), and by the self-evident "what if" nature of the game.

And it need specified that this is not what if in the sense of realistic althistory, but in the sense of crazy "what if samurai fought spartans" historical whimsy what if.

Locking civilizations into their historical status - "if you weren't unified historically then you cannot be represented as one civilization in the game" flies in the very face of that whimsy.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Here we fundamentally disagree.

You are saying, basically, that Politics is utterly unimportant in the construction of a Civilization, compared to, I assume, Culture, Language, Religion as a component of culture and civic practice. That will come as a great surprise to millions of people over the centuries who have died in pursuit of political objectives or objections. To completely ignore it, I firmly believe, makes for less of a game.

Which does not mean the political structure of any group should be paramount. For one thing, damn few Civilizations anywhere started out politically coherent or remained identically coherent throughout their history: there are plenty of Neolithic city-sites that show no sign of any heirarchial leadership at all, nor any sign that there was anything but antagonism or wary distrust between individual settlements, no matter how similar they were in language, culture, or architecture. Assuming a single political entity for everyone is just as false as assuming that their political identity and structure is unimportant.

I firmly believe that what is needed is not exclusion of any Civ solely due to its political centralism or eccentricism, but some way of modeling the very different way in which different degrees of centralism (if any!) operated. Athens, Syracuse, or any other Greek City State could go to war. The Greek Civilization never could - until most of it was conquered by Outsiders and incorporated into their forces (note that Alexander's 'Macedonian' army at Gaugamela had as many Greeks in it as Macedonians). This does not and cannot mean that Classical Greece cannot be a model for a playable Civilization, but it does mean that neither Pericles nor the gamer behind him can give orders and expect obedience from Thebes or Corinth the way Phillip of Macedon could expect from his Kingdom.

I think there has to be a Political Mechanic/Component to the Civilizations to represent the differences. I also freely admit that any such game mechanic, to be playable, has to have a balance of negative (it's much harder to 'mobilize' all the economic and military power of your Decentralized Civ at the moment) and positive (your individual cities, city states, leagues, etc can each develop simultaneously in slightly different ways?). And, to be as inclusive as possible, Different Politic Mechanics should also include such decentralized civ-entities as pastoral groups, tribal 'coalitions', or even temporary economic/political non-state groups like the Hanseatic League or Coxinga's Pirates.

The Greeks famously said that if the Thracians ever united they could conquer the world. Automatically removing the problem of 'uniting' your Civilization, where that problem is appropriate, simply reduces the rich variety of history to a monotonous political fantasy.

 

[luca 83]

Here we fundamentally disagree.

You are saying, basically, that Politics is utterly unimportant in the construction of a Civilization, compared to, I assume, Culture, Language, Religion as a component of culture and civic practice. That will come as a great surprise to millions of people over the centuries who have died in pursuit of political objectives or objections. To completely ignore it, I firmly believe, makes for less of a game.

Which does not mean the political structure of any group should be paramount. For one thing, damn few Civilizations anywhere started out politically coherent or remained identically coherent throughout their history: there are plenty of Neolithic city-sites that show no sign of any heirarchial leadership at all, nor any sign that there was anything but antagonism or wary distrust between individual settlements, no matter how similar they were in language, culture, or architecture. Assuming a single political entity for everyone is just as false as assuming that their political identity and structure is unimportant.

I firmly believe that what is needed is not exclusion of any Civ solely due to its political centralism or eccentricism, but some way of modeling the very different way in which different degrees of centralism (if any!) operated. Athens, Syracuse, or any other Greek City State could go to war. The Greek Civilization never could - until most of it was conquered by Outsiders and incorporated into their forces (note that Alexander's 'Macedonian' army at Gaugamela had as many Greeks in it as Macedonians). This does not and cannot mean that Classical Greece cannot be a model for a playable Civilization, but it does mean that neither Pericles nor the gamer behind him can give orders and expect obedience from Thebes or Corinth the way Phillip of Macedon could expect from his Kingdom.

I think there has to be a Political Mechanic/Component to the Civilizations to represent the differences. I also freely admit that any such game mechanic, to be playable, has to have a balance of negative (it's much harder to 'mobilize' all the economic and military power of your Decentralized Civ at the moment) and positive (your individual cities, city states, leagues, etc can each develop simultaneously in slightly different ways?). And, to be as inclusive as possible, Different Politic Mechanics should also include such decentralized civ-entities as pastoral groups, tribal 'coalitions', or even temporary economic/political non-state groups like the Hanseatic League or Coxinga's Pirates.

The Greeks famously said that if the Thracians ever united they could conquer the world. Automatically removing the problem of 'uniting' your Civilization, where that problem is appropriate, simply reduces the rich variety of history to a monotonous political fantasy.

And for this and other reasons, there is no point in having fixed, not even representative, leaders. each era has its leaders and is the child of its era and politics, Stalin is the child of the Russian revolution, Elizabeth 1 of the succession to Henry viii and religious dissensions

 

[Evie]

There is certainly room for game mechanisms that represent the various forms of political organizations a civilization could have, including city states, in the game, but as you say they very much should be weighted against how fun they actually are, and, more importantly, they should not be forced on any civilization on the basis of "what was", but rather open to all civilization on the basis of "what if": a possible path that any civilization can take but no civilization is locked into. At most, one might make a case for certain civilization AIs having a weighted preference toward certain forms of organization over others (and even that should be a weighted preference, that is, being more likely all other things being equal to pick a certain form of government, not being locked into it whether or not it makes any sense gameplay wise).

In any event, my principal point is that such considerations should have no bearing in what can or cannot be a civilization in the game, or who the leader of that civilization can or cannot be.

(And for what it's worth I'm also against Venice, but because in my opinion the various Italian republics and city-states (at least in Northern Italy) are essentially assorted manifestations of an Italian civilization that existed long before it was politically united).

 

[Patine]

Pericles who certainly never was leader of all the greeks is nonetheless a leader of the greek civilization.

I've made the case many times, will make it again, that the fact that civilizations can appear as politically united in game should not carry (and never has carried) the implication that only united polities should be eligible. That a civ leader need not have been a leader of the entire civilization is simply a corollary to that. The in-game situation is covered both by the player-is-not-the-political-leader caveat (that is, the player is at a greater remote than political control level, that does not require unity), and by the self-evident "what if" nature of the game.

And it need specified that this is not what if in the sense of realistic althistory, but in the sense of crazy "what if samurai fought spartans" historical whimsy what if.

Locking civilizations into their historical status - "if you weren't unified historically then you cannot be represented as one civilization in the game" flies in the very face of that whimsy.

One of the biggest flaws to this fast and loose definition of civ's and leaders is it validates the Mascot Gandhi...

 

[Evie]

The two core problems with Gandhi are a)whether India really should be a unified civ, or whether it's an unnatural blob forcing together wholly distinct cultures ; and b)the repetitive overuse of him as leader at the expanse of other, also excellent choices.

These two problems can be addressed without making up dubious rules about "must have been a formal leader of the entire civilization" that invalidate countless other options just to get at Gandhi.

 

[luca 83]

the change of policy between the regional city states to the dynastic Renaissance states is fundamental for Italian history the republic9ca of Florence is not the same as that of the Medici, the same thing for Rimini and the Malatesta dynasty the scaligeri in Verona, the gonzaga in mantua,. so change leaders, dynasties governments

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

There is certainly room for game mechanisms that represent the various forms of political organizations a civilization could have, including city states, in the game, but as you say they very much should be weighted against how fun they actually are, and, more importantly, they should not be forced on any civilization on the basis of "what was", but rather open to all civilization on the basis of "what if": a possible path that any civilization can take but no civilization is locked into. At most, one might make a case for certain civilization AIs having a weighted preference toward certain forms of organization over others (and even that should be a weighted preference, that is, being more likely all other things being equal to pick a certain form of government, not being locked into it whether or not it makes any sense gameplay wise).

And here our concepts converge. I am equally against any Civ starting in 4000 BCE or possibly earlier being crammed into a political, diplomatic, military or any other strait jacket that could only apply if Everything about that Civ marched lockstep through the ages just as it did IRL. Bad enough that, for recognition purposes as much as anything else, they are saddled with a Unique that usually applies to only one thin slice of their history.

Using historical city-states was a bad example for the Minor Civ set. A better set of examples would be the many Civs that cannot be modeled as playable Civs in the game because that would require knowledge of leaders and/or languages that we just do not have (at the moment): Etruscans, Minoans, Olmecs, Harappans are all better examples. But note that here is a lot of evidence that all of those may have been Less Than Centralized polities - 'City States' might be too narrow a term, but something similar is quite possible.

And quite aside from that, the game still needs better models of the wild variations in government forms and the diplomatic, military, loyalty, commercial, etc. consequences of them. The current fixed governments with fixed numbers and types of 'civics' is, IMHO, a step backwards from previous games and far too limited to apply to every polity at every time in its existence.

Footnote to Gandhi and India: my wife and I know several Indian families - she's worked as a nanny or caretaker for several of them over the years - and they are from all over that country, from northwest to southeast. The only language they have in common is English. Nor do they share the same religion, tastes in food, or 'native' costume. Those traits alone are a fair argument against India as a 'unified' civilization/culture . . .

 

[aieeegrunt]

And here our concepts converge. I am equally against any Civ starting in 4000 BCE or possibly earlier being crammed into a political, diplomatic, military or any other strait jacket that could only apply if Everything about that Civ marched lockstep through the ages just as it did IRL. Bad enough that, for recognition purposes as much as anything else, they are saddled with a Unique that usually applies to only one thin slice of their history.

Using historical city-states was a bad example for the Minor Civ set. A better set of examples would be the many Civs that cannot be modeled as playable Civs in the game because that would require knowledge of leaders and/or languages that we just do not have (at the moment): Etruscans, Minoans, Olmecs, Harappans are all better examples. But note that here is a lot of evidence that all of those may have been Less Than Centralized polities - 'City States' might be too narrow a term, but something similar is quite possible.

And quite aside from that, the game still needs better models of the wild variations in government forms and the diplomatic, military, loyalty, commercial, etc. consequences of them. The current fixed governments with fixed numbers and types of 'civics' is, IMHO, a step backwards from previous games and far too limited to apply to every polity at every time in its existence.

Footnote to Gandhi and India: my wife and I know several Indian families - she's worked as a nanny or caretaker for several of them over the years - and they are from all over that country, from northwest to southeast. The only language they have in common is English. Nor do they share the same religion, tastes in food, or 'native' costume. Those traits alone are a fair argument against India as a 'unified' civilization/culture . . .

That has been my experience as well. Blobbing Idia is as ridiculous as have one “European” Civ would be.