Little things you'd like to see in Civilization VII

[historix69]

Instead of pre-Renaissance naval units being unable to cross ocean tiles, they should be able to move into ocean but their health decreases every turn they end on an ocean tile

Depending on Civ version naval units may not heal/repair in neutral/enemy area until they get a specific promotion. This may turn ocean exploring into 1-way suicide mission unless the restriction is changed, eg that all ships may repair some damage per turn when in neutral coastal tiles near land.

 

[Patine]

Instead of pre-Renaissance naval units being unable to cross ocean tiles, they should be able to move into ocean but their health decreases every turn they end on an ocean tile

Pre-Renaissance is too arbitrary and gamey. I would tether it to a tech or the ability to gain a unit, not to an epoch.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Pre-Renaissance is too arbitrary and gamey. I would tether it to a tech or the ability to gain a unit, not to an epoch.

Cartography seems appropriate, as that is the tech that already allows all naval units to cross ocean tiles.

 

[Bonyduck Campersang]

While a reasonable design in theory, that would require large oceans in practice to make them a navigation obstacle as they should be - and since water tiles have relatively low game utility otherwise, this may not be the best approach

Make it so that the ship loses health for every tile it crosses (not just ends up on)?

Also, historically, while storm damage was part of the threat of sailing out of sight of land, the inability to determine your position was the greater threat (and coastal storms are plenty bad enough, so not a threat unique to ocean travel) Ships stayed in sight of land until they had the proper marine charts, star charts and navigation instrument to sail long distances without sighting land.

I'm not so sure that historical accuracy should be an absolute factor in determining gameplay mechanics. I believe there are plenty of other mechanics which are historically inaccurate yet make sense gameplay-wise.

Consider healing land units. When a unit is down to minimum health and heals, what is it doing? Is it resurrecting fallen soldiers or is it recruiting new ones? If the latter, how would healing in enemy territory be explained? If they are recruiting local warriors from the countryside, shouldn't there be a drop in professionalism and discipline (especially for later-Era units) and therefore combat ability? How are promotions preserved if the new soldiers joining don't have the experience?

I think my idea makes sense as regards gameplay. It solves the weird problem of not being able to move into ocean tiles 1-2 tiles away while you can move into coastal tiles extending even further from land, and not having to open borders with a civ that controls a few coastal tiles making it impossible to navigate along its borders.

(The last example is in hindsight not very illuminating, but I have a headache now and can't think or express properly)

 

[Bonyduck Campersang]

Pre-Renaissance is too arbitrary and gamey. I would tether it to a tech or the ability to gain a unit, not to an epoch.

I said pre-Renaissance because we don't know what techs and ships will be in Civilization VII (although it's safe to bet that the Renaissance Era naval unit will be called the 'Caravel')

 

[Evie]

No, I agree the accuracy argument is not decisive - it's just an aside/secondary point to the main point - which is the gameplay problems.

Though the history does suggest to me that increased movement cost to ocean tiles might be part of the solution. Then certain techs/abilities could remove that movement penalty.

 

[Patine]

Then certain techs/abilities could remove that movement penalty.

Or even have a significant, "jump," in movement points for caravels and onward (as well as a UU ship of a potential Oceanian civ).

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Make it so that the ship loses health for every tile it crosses (not just ends up on)?


I'm not so sure that historical accuracy should be an absolute factor in determining gameplay mechanics. I believe there are plenty of other mechanics which are historically inaccurate yet make sense gameplay-wise.

Consider healing land units. When a unit is down to minimum health and heals, what is it doing? Is it resurrecting fallen soldiers or is it recruiting new ones? If the latter, how would healing in enemy territory be explained? If they are recruiting local warriors from the countryside, shouldn't there be a drop in professionalism and discipline (especially for later-Era units) and therefore combat ability? How are promotions preserved if the new soldiers joining don't have the experience?

I think my idea makes sense as regards gameplay. It solves the weird problem of not being able to move into ocean tiles 1-2 tiles away while you can move into coastal tiles extending even further from land, and not having to open borders with a civ that controls a few coastal tiles making it impossible to navigate along its borders.

(The last example is in hindsight not very illuminating, but I have a headache now and can't think or express properly)

Speaking of land units, it would also make sense for most of them, at least early game, to possibly lose health per turn when traversing, or stopping on tiles with rainforests, desert, and tundra due to the harsh environments. Being adjacent to water might prevent losing health, such as finding an oasis.

 

[historix69]

Consider healing land units. When a unit is down to minimum health and heals, what is it doing? Is it resurrecting fallen soldiers or is it recruiting new ones?

Unless a unit is completely wiped out, unit damage in Civ games probably has to be interpreted to a large part as light injuries and loss of organization and supply, so that a unit can recover 10-25% of its combat strength per turn without extra costs. Units usually don't fight to the last man. If the battle turns against them, they will try to retreat to survive and fight another day.

I think in WW2 the casualty rate for a hit was approximately : 60 % light wounded, 20 % badly wounded, 20 % killed. So you only have to replace 40% of those soldiers who were hit. If for example 10% of soldiers in a unit are hit before the unit retreats or battle is over, that's only 4% of the overall personell to be replaced.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Unless a unit is completely wiped out, unit damage in Civ games probably has to be interpreted to a large part as light injuries and loss of organization and supply, so that a unit can recover 10-25% of its combat strength per turn without extra costs. Units usually don't fight to the last man. If the battle turns against them, they will try to retreat to survive and fight another day.

I think in WW2 the casualty rate for a hit was approximately : 60 % light wounded, 20 % badly wounded, 20 % killed. So you only have to replace 40% of those soldiers who were hit. If for example 10% of soldiers in a unit are hit before the unit retreats or battle is over, that's only 4% of the overall personell to be replaced.

Unfortunately, it's a lot more complicated. Armies have always included a percentage of non-combatants - servants, horse-holders, people carrying supplies. For examples, every Greek Hoplite had at least one servant, among other things carrying his armor on the march, because they rarely wore the whole panoply while marching (metal cuirass, helmet, greaves, etc on a summer day in Greece: Heat Stroke, anyone?) and one Tang Chinese army had 20,000 soldiers and 60,000 servants, camp followers, supply people.
By WWII it had gotten much worse: a US division with 15,000 men in the division had another 30 - 35,000 men behind it moving supplies, laying communications wire, controlling traffic, etc. Even the extremely frugal Soviet Army averaged 1.5 men behind the front for every man in a rifle division, and of course the divisions averaged only 1/2 to 1/3 of their men actually in contact with the enemy: 8,000 casualties out of a German 17,500 man infantry division in 1941 meant the division had 0 infantrymen left in it.

So, total casualties will always be a fraction of the total strength, and sometimes a relatively small fraction. Counting the entire 'division slice' - all the men required to keep a division operating - as little as 10 - 25% of the total numbers that become casualties means the division is down to 0 combat strength.

And in addition, despite all the advances in medicine by WWII, on average armies still had one man out sick or injured for every 2 men hurt by the enemy. Men got run over by vehicles, fell off of high places, came down with chills and pneumonia, fell ill to infectious diseases, got frostbitten or heat injury. On the other hand, on average 50% of the overall combat casualties were returned to duty (in both the German and Soviet militaries 1941 - 1945) - although not always to the frontline: if too badly damaged, they wound up behind the front moving supplies, etc.

But overall, the fact remains that every one of our 'units' actually includes a bunch of people not actually fighting anybody, and no matter what nominal strength you give a unit (battalion, tercio, regiment, brigade, tuman, ordos, division, etc) the majority of them are not fighters and so the 'casualty count' for any unit will only be a fraction of its total strength in raw numbers.

 

[jsciv69]

The Black Market

Should a Civ VII be possible, some thoughts about rethinking Barbarians. And the creation of a Black Market

Playing as Barbarians
How many would like to play the part of marauding bands of invaders, scavengers, and ransackers. Best known as Barbarians. I would certainly like that option. We start the game with an outpost, battle units, and a Peddler unit. We send our units to attack/raid cargo ships and storehouses. The Peddler Unit then sells these goods to any Civ, City State, or even other Barbarians. Thus the creation of a Black Market

From Barbarians to Pirates
As we progress toward the Modern Ages. Our Barbarian Outposts begin to produce Pirates. ARG. Also we should have the ability, starting from the Ancient Eras, to recruit citizens from Civs, City States, and other Barbarians. Those we recruit can be sent abroad as Peddler units to expand our enterprises.

Black Market
Illicit trade has been around for a very long time. I would like to see how this can be worked into the Civilization series. The goods that are traded can include Narcotics when we get to the modern era. Opinions about the Drugs industry can vary. But it's a very real part of history. Each Civ, City State, Barbarian Outpost can produce Peddlers. these peddlers become Pirates, then become Mafia Gangs that sell "obtained" goods and services. Goods including Narcotics, Booze, Fabrics, Weapons etc. Services can be hired to perform certain functions.

Of course this is just a rough idea. But I think it's worth exploring.. I borrow from a most famous line and say. It's an offer we can't refuse.

 

[Patine]

The Black Market

Should a Civ VII be possible, some thoughts about rethinking Barbarians. And the creation of a Black Market

Playing as Barbarians
How many would like to play the part of marauding bands of invaders, scavengers, and ransackers. Best known as Barbarians. I would certainly like that option. We start the game with an outpost, battle units, and a Peddler unit. We send our units to attack/raid cargo ships and storehouses. The Peddler Unit then sells these goods to any Civ, City State, or even other Barbarians. Thus the creation of a Black Market

From Barbarians to Pirates
As we progress toward the Modern Ages. Our Barbarian Outposts begin to produce Pirates. ARG. Also we should have the ability, starting from the Ancient Eras, to recruit citizens from Civs, City States, and other Barbarians. Those we recruit can be sent abroad as Peddler units to expand our enterprises.

Black Market
Illicit trade has been around for a very long time. I would like to see how this can be worked into the Civilization series. The goods that are traded can include Narcotics when we get to the modern era. Opinions about the Drugs industry can vary. But it's a very real part of history. Each Civ, City State, Barbarian Outpost can produce Peddlers. these peddlers become Pirates, then become Mafia Gangs that sell "obtained" goods and services. Goods including Narcotics, Booze, Fabrics, Weapons etc. Services can be hired to perform certain functions.

Of course this is just a rough idea. But I think it's worth exploring. And since we are celebrating the 50th Anniversary of the greatest film ever. I borrow from a most famous line and say. It's an offer we can't refuse.

This sounds like it's inspired from the, "Pirates and Warlords," expansion to the '90's boardgame, "Supremacy."

 

[civilizationfanatic2000]

i would like to have civilization acknowledge that no, not everyone was a full-fledged civilization in 4000 BCE, and that some peoples didn't even have a cultural identity yet. i want some civilizations to start and stay as rural illiterate barbarians for dozens or hundreds of turns while others start as fully urban civ, and make that fun and balanced. to help this, it could help to decrease the focus on cities and focus more on the small scale: towns, villages, and hamlets. ideally, there would be a 'developing civilization' game mechanic, where to allow for the diversity of civs and leaders civ allows, you would start with a base culture and then evolve into one culture depending on your environment, history, and actions.

For instance, Indo-European (start in steppes): migrate to a rocky island lying nearby, become Myceanean Greek, get a leaderhead and some abilities. then, as the bronze age collapse happens, turn into Classical Greeks, get a new leaderhead and new abilities. then either survive being conquered or unite as a New Greece or as (Eastern) Romans.

t there could be shared cultures, there could be culture splits. These cultures would be invariant of Era unlike in Humankind. There would also be a cultural influence mechanic (like if the Celts or the Illyrians united Europe instead of the Romans.) that would boil down to a few bonuses inherited from the other leader. So, each Civilization would have 1-2 empty ability spots for other civilizations to fill in.

here are some examples to make my point.

Indo-European: Splits into Italic, Greek, Baltic, Balkan, Slavic, Celtic, Iranian, Hindi, etc...depending on place of migration. As an example, a player would choose Polish when they get voluntarily converted to a new religion, coming from the Slavic predecessor civilization, whereas Roman would come from waging many wars in a hilly peninsula.

East Asian: Splits into Japanese, Chinese, and Korean. For instance, one would become Japanese if they migrate to a rocky island. To select Chinese, move to a region with fertile rivers surrounded by hostile land (mountains, desert, ocean)

Central Asian: Splits into Mongolian, Tibetian, and Turkic. If you want to play as the Mongols, migrate to the steppe and become familiarized with the horse. If you then conquer China, you become the Yuan Dynasty, which the Chinese can also become if they get conquered by you.

Middle Eastern: Splits into Egyptian, Mesopotamian, Anatolian, Caucasian, and Arabian. If you want to play as the Egyptians, settle in a fertile river surrounded by desert. If you want to play as the Mesopotamians, settle between two fertile rivers surrounded by desert. If you want to play the Caucasians, settle near mountains and a lake or sea.

You could also become 'civilized' by taking over another literate urban civilization as rural illiterate barbarians, like how the Germanic tribes did. In the current Civ paradigm you cannot replicate the Fall of Rome, nor the Indo-Iranian migration into India, nor the urbanization and education of Scandinavia. There would be, say, 64(!) civilizations to play with at the minimum.

 

[Patine]

i would like to have civilization acknowledge that no, not everyone was a full-fledged civilization in 4000 BCE, and that some peoples didn't even have a cultural identity yet. i want some civilizations to start and stay as rural illiterate barbarians for dozens or hundreds of turns while others start as fully urban civ, and make that fun and balanced. to help this, it could help to decrease the focus on cities and focus more on the small scale: towns, villages, and hamlets. ideally, there would be a 'developing civilization' game mechanic, where to allow for the diversity of civs and leaders civ allows, you would start with a base culture and then evolve into one culture depending on your environment, history, and actions.

For instance, Indo-European (start in steppes): migrate to a rocky island lying nearby, become Myceanean Greek, get a leaderhead and some abilities. then, as the bronze age collapse happens, turn into Classical Greeks, get a new leaderhead and new abilities. then either survive being conquered or unite as a New Greece or as (Eastern) Romans.

t there could be shared cultures, there could be culture splits. These cultures would be invariant of Era unlike in Humankind. There would also be a cultural influence mechanic (like if the Celts or the Illyrians united Europe instead of the Romans.) that would boil down to a few bonuses inherited from the other leader. So, each Civilization would have 1-2 empty ability spots for other civilizations to fill in.

here are some examples to make my point.

Indo-European: Splits into Italic, Greek, Baltic, Balkan, Slavic, Celtic, Iranian, Hindi, etc...depending on place of migration. As an example, a player would choose Polish when they get voluntarily converted to a new religion, coming from the Slavic predecessor civilization, whereas Roman would come from waging many wars in a hilly peninsula.

East Asian: Splits into Japanese, Chinese, and Korean. For instance, one would become Japanese if they migrate to a rocky island. To select Chinese, move to a region with fertile rivers surrounded by hostile land (mountains, desert, ocean)

Central Asian: Splits into Mongolian, Tibetian, and Turkic. If you want to play as the Mongols, migrate to the steppe and become familiarized with the horse. If you then conquer China, you become the Yuan Dynasty, which the Chinese can also become if they get conquered by you.

Middle Eastern: Splits into Egyptian, Mesopotamian, Anatolian, Caucasian, and Arabian. If you want to play as the Egyptians, settle in a fertile river surrounded by desert. If you want to play as the Mesopotamians, settle between two fertile rivers surrounded by desert. If you want to play the Caucasians, settle near mountains and a lake or sea.

You could also become 'civilized' by taking over another literate urban civilization as rural illiterate barbarians, like how the Germanic tribes did. In the current Civ paradigm you cannot replicate the Fall of Rome, nor the Indo-Iranian migration into India, nor the urbanization and education of Scandinavia. There would be, say, 64(!) civilizations to play with at the minimum.

Basal Ethno-Linguistic groupings do not really translate directly or cleanly to civlizations, nations, or empires at the end of the day, I'm afraid.

 

[Evie]

I think I'd like to try that game, and it's definitely an interesting idea, but my gut feeling is that people are too attached to pkaying their favorite civs (and leader) in, well, civ to embrace a game where it take a long part of the game before you're that civ, and you might never become the civ you want to play if you're unlucky (eg, someone else gets the right conditione first, or you never get the right conditions)l At the very least you'd need mechanism to allow people to play as their favorite civ from game start.

The main problem from a game perspective would probably be everyone starting with the same leaderheads (Generic Indo-European leader), which is hard to make work in a leader-centric game.

But as a game mode, or game start option, or as its own game, definitely interesting to try,

 

[pineappledan]

Sounds too much like a simulation and not a game.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

i would like to have civilization acknowledge that no, not everyone was a full-fledged civilization in 4000 BCE, and that some peoples didn't even have a cultural identity yet. i want some civilizations to start and stay as rural illiterate barbarians for dozens or hundreds of turns while others start as fully urban civ, and make that fun and balanced. to help this, it could help to decrease the focus on cities and focus more on the small scale: towns, villages, and hamlets. ideally, there would be a 'developing civilization' game mechanic, where to allow for the diversity of civs and leaders civ allows, you would start with a base culture and then evolve into one culture depending on your environment, history, and actions.

I'd like to see this implemented for all the non-playable civs, at least.

 

[Bonyduck Campersang]

i would like to have civilization acknowledge that no, not everyone was a full-fledged civilization in 4000 BCE, and that some peoples didn't even have a cultural identity yet. i want some civilizations to start and stay as rural illiterate barbarians for dozens or hundreds of turns while others start as fully urban civ, and make that fun and balanced. to help this, it could help to decrease the focus on cities and focus more on the small scale: towns, villages, and hamlets. ideally, there would be a 'developing civilization' game mechanic, where to allow for the diversity of civs and leaders civ allows, you would start with a base culture and then evolve into one culture depending on your environment, history, and actions.

For instance, Indo-European (start in steppes): migrate to a rocky island lying nearby, become Myceanean Greek, get a leaderhead and some abilities. then, as the bronze age collapse happens, turn into Classical Greeks, get a new leaderhead and new abilities. then either survive being conquered or unite as a New Greece or as (Eastern) Romans.

t there could be shared cultures, there could be culture splits. These cultures would be invariant of Era unlike in Humankind. There would also be a cultural influence mechanic (like if the Celts or the Illyrians united Europe instead of the Romans.) that would boil down to a few bonuses inherited from the other leader. So, each Civilization would have 1-2 empty ability spots for other civilizations to fill in.

here are some examples to make my point.

Indo-European: Splits into Italic, Greek, Baltic, Balkan, Slavic, Celtic, Iranian, Hindi, etc...depending on place of migration. As an example, a player would choose Polish when they get voluntarily converted to a new religion, coming from the Slavic predecessor civilization, whereas Roman would come from waging many wars in a hilly peninsula.

East Asian: Splits into Japanese, Chinese, and Korean. For instance, one would become Japanese if they migrate to a rocky island. To select Chinese, move to a region with fertile rivers surrounded by hostile land (mountains, desert, ocean)

Central Asian: Splits into Mongolian, Tibetian, and Turkic. If you want to play as the Mongols, migrate to the steppe and become familiarized with the horse. If you then conquer China, you become the Yuan Dynasty, which the Chinese can also become if they get conquered by you.

Middle Eastern: Splits into Egyptian, Mesopotamian, Anatolian, Caucasian, and Arabian. If you want to play as the Egyptians, settle in a fertile river surrounded by desert. If you want to play as the Mesopotamians, settle between two fertile rivers surrounded by desert. If you want to play the Caucasians, settle near mountains and a lake or sea.

You could also become 'civilized' by taking over another literate urban civilization as rural illiterate barbarians, like how the Germanic tribes did. In the current Civ paradigm you cannot replicate the Fall of Rome, nor the Indo-Iranian migration into India, nor the urbanization and education of Scandinavia. There would be, say, 64(!) civilizations to play with at the minimum.

This is almost exactly the idea I've had for a game series (though I wouldn't be counting on seeing it implemented in Civ), it's uncanny seeing someone else propose it!

 

[BuchiTaton]

i would like to have civilization acknowledge that no, not everyone was a full-fledged civilization in 4000 BCE, and that some peoples didn't even have a cultural identity yet. i want some civilizations to start and stay as rural illiterate barbarians for dozens or hundreds of turns while others start as fully urban civ, and make that fun and balanced. to help this, it could help to decrease the focus on cities and focus more on the small scale: towns, villages, and hamlets. ideally, there would be a 'developing civilization' game mechanic, where to allow for the diversity of civs and leaders civ allows, you would start with a base culture and then evolve into one culture depending on your environment, history, and actions.

For instance, Indo-European (start in steppes): migrate to a rocky island lying nearby, become Myceanean Greek, get a leaderhead and some abilities. then, as the bronze age collapse happens, turn into Classical Greeks, get a new leaderhead and new abilities. then either survive being conquered or unite as a New Greece or as (Eastern) Romans.

t there could be shared cultures, there could be culture splits. These cultures would be invariant of Era unlike in Humankind. There would also be a cultural influence mechanic (like if the Celts or the Illyrians united Europe instead of the Romans.) that would boil down to a few bonuses inherited from the other leader. So, each Civilization would have 1-2 empty ability spots for other civilizations to fill in.

here are some examples to make my point.

Indo-European: Splits into Italic, Greek, Baltic, Balkan, Slavic, Celtic, Iranian, Hindi, etc...depending on place of migration. As an example, a player would choose Polish when they get voluntarily converted to a new religion, coming from the Slavic predecessor civilization, whereas Roman would come from waging many wars in a hilly peninsula.

East Asian: Splits into Japanese, Chinese, and Korean. For instance, one would become Japanese if they migrate to a rocky island. To select Chinese, move to a region with fertile rivers surrounded by hostile land (mountains, desert, ocean)

Central Asian: Splits into Mongolian, Tibetian, and Turkic. If you want to play as the Mongols, migrate to the steppe and become familiarized with the horse. If you then conquer China, you become the Yuan Dynasty, which the Chinese can also become if they get conquered by you.

Middle Eastern: Splits into Egyptian, Mesopotamian, Anatolian, Caucasian, and Arabian. If you want to play as the Egyptians, settle in a fertile river surrounded by desert. If you want to play as the Mesopotamians, settle between two fertile rivers surrounded by desert. If you want to play the Caucasians, settle near mountains and a lake or sea.

You could also become 'civilized' by taking over another literate urban civilization as rural illiterate barbarians, like how the Germanic tribes did. In the current Civ paradigm you cannot replicate the Fall of Rome, nor the Indo-Iranian migration into India, nor the urbanization and education of Scandinavia. There would be, say, 64(!) civilizations to play with at the minimum.

Considering this thread is titled "Little things you'd like to see in Civilization VII" I think we are reaching new levels that dont even looks like CIV franchise but a different similarly themed game.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

i would like to have civilization acknowledge that no, not everyone was a full-fledged civilization in 4000 BCE, and that some peoples didn't even have a cultural identity yet. i want some civilizations to start and stay as rural illiterate barbarians for dozens or hundreds of turns while others start as fully urban civ, and make that fun and balanced. to help this, it could help to decrease the focus on cities and focus more on the small scale: towns, villages, and hamlets. ideally, there would be a 'developing civilization' game mechanic, where to allow for the diversity of civs and leaders civ allows, you would start with a base culture and then evolve into one culture depending on your environment, history, and actions.

For instance, Indo-European (start in steppes): migrate to a rocky island lying nearby, become Myceanean Greek, get a leaderhead and some abilities. then, as the bronze age collapse happens, turn into Classical Greeks, get a new leaderhead and new abilities. then either survive being conquered or unite as a New Greece or as (Eastern) Romans.

t there could be shared cultures, there could be culture splits. These cultures would be invariant of Era unlike in Humankind. There would also be a cultural influence mechanic (like if the Celts or the Illyrians united Europe instead of the Romans.) that would boil down to a few bonuses inherited from the other leader. So, each Civilization would have 1-2 empty ability spots for other civilizations to fill in.

here are some examples to make my point.

Indo-European: Splits into Italic, Greek, Baltic, Balkan, Slavic, Celtic, Iranian, Hindi, etc...depending on place of migration. As an example, a player would choose Polish when they get voluntarily converted to a new religion, coming from the Slavic predecessor civilization, whereas Roman would come from waging many wars in a hilly peninsula.

East Asian: Splits into Japanese, Chinese, and Korean. For instance, one would become Japanese if they migrate to a rocky island. To select Chinese, move to a region with fertile rivers surrounded by hostile land (mountains, desert, ocean)

Central Asian: Splits into Mongolian, Tibetian, and Turkic. If you want to play as the Mongols, migrate to the steppe and become familiarized with the horse. If you then conquer China, you become the Yuan Dynasty, which the Chinese can also become if they get conquered by you.

Middle Eastern: Splits into Egyptian, Mesopotamian, Anatolian, Caucasian, and Arabian. If you want to play as the Egyptians, settle in a fertile river surrounded by desert. If you want to play as the Mesopotamians, settle between two fertile rivers surrounded by desert. If you want to play the Caucasians, settle near mountains and a lake or sea.

You could also become 'civilized' by taking over another literate urban civilization as rural illiterate barbarians, like how the Germanic tribes did. In the current Civ paradigm you cannot replicate the Fall of Rome, nor the Indo-Iranian migration into India, nor the urbanization and education of Scandinavia. There would be, say, 64(!) civilizations to play with at the minimum.

This is definitely not a Little Change, at least to the Civ franchise.

On the other hand, it builds on Humankind's "neolithic start" which from the beginning (during playtesting) I thought was too generic and limited both from the standpoint of the historical/prehistorical reality and as a game mechanic - it wound up being a "wander the map looking for a good starting position" mechanic when it could have been so much more.

The biggest problem with any such Pre-Civ start is what @Evie pointed out: gamers in Civ are very attached to playing 'their' Civ and Leader from the beginning: it's really what the game is all about and always has been. So starting as a 'generic' Indo-European Group (Neolithic Yamnaya or Sintashta Cultures), no matter what is promised for later, is simply going to be regarded as a Preliminary Event to the 'real' game playing as German, Persian or Celtic 'Civ' after a few turns.

Here's a possibility; a "Civ Fudging" of the concept:

You have two possible Starting Conditions:
You start as a specific Civ with a specific Leader, but at the beginning it is a wandering Neolithic Group that starts from a relevant biome: "Indo-European" in a Central Asiaticish plain/steppe, Iranian in a semi-desert, East Asian in marshier riverine area. You have Uniques related to your 'historical' starting position and condition, but also access to more 'generic' terrain-based Uniques that may be more useful where you actually wind up settling.
OR
You start as a Basic Ethno-Linguistic Group (Indo-European, East Asian, Iranian, etc) and develop into a more specific Civ based on your wanders in the Neolithic - which also allow you to develop basic and specific technologies and cultural attributes/civics for that Civ. By the time you settle down or start expanding dramatically, you are the Celts under Ambidestrous or the Romans under Nefarius Purpus with appropriate Uniques, some of which may or may not be strictly Historical, but more appropriate for the wooded swamp that, say, your Persians ended up starting their first city in.

This would be my preferred way to play, but recognize that many players (and me on occasion) want to play as Etruscans with the specific goal of world domination despite all the odds, or some other Civ because they/I want to try out a peculiar set of Uniques not available except for that Cv. - Traditional Civilization gaming, in other words. That option has to remain in whatever alternate system is proposed, because it has been resoundingly successful for the past 30 + years and is not likely to be abandoned by any company determined to stay in business.