Little things you'd like to see in Civilization VII

[Naokaukodem]

Sorry, I assumed that the American Civil War would at least be vaguely familiar to most people on this forum, but (and this has been done in Civ scenarios) the Fall of Rome would be an equally good example: it assumes in the first place that there was a multi-national Roman Empire, that there was a set of 'barbarian invasions/migrations', and that a combination of inefficient tax collection systems, de-populating plagues, and a political system that lended itself to instabilty (having never really codified any institutional system of succession for Emperors, among other things) all existed to bring about any Fall. And, of course, the exact consequences of the 'fall' are an entirely other set of events that presuppose a whole set of preliminary events also - some dating from before the establishment of the Roman Empire!

And just a note: the African continent was circumnavigated at least once long before the great age of European colonization, back in the classical era. Unfortunately there was no good economic reason to repeat it, so it was largely relegated to a few lines of disbelief in Herodotus. The Norse temporary settlement in North America relative to the later Age of Exploration and Colonization would be a similar occurance: physically possible earlier, but without good reasons to go to all the trouble, not really important until later.

One more note: "expecting to happen" is one of the basic Game Problems in any kind of even vaguely historically-based game: it's not hard to find out what 'really' happened in history - at least the Big Events like the Fall of Rome - so the gamer cannot help but 'expect' certain things to happen, or have a chance to happen, if he does X or Y in the game. Short of lobotomizing the entire gaming community, I don't know any way to avoid this completely except by 'disguising' the situation. That is, playing as Korea in 1300 CE you don't realize that your in-game situation is replicating that of the Roman Empire in the 5th century CE and that you are Ripe For A Fall. This requires some very tricky game design, and also a massive amount of work to isolate and recreate the conditions that 'made' things happen IRL - and of course, many of the conditions are Conditional - they might make X happen, they might make B happen, they might have no effect at all because of Z, D, and F happening Somewhere Else.

You don't HAVE TO simulate every ins and outs you know, because it would be a recreation of the real world, thing that is impossible, if only because this recreation should take itself into account, it is to say our world with our simulated world, simulated world that would have to take into account its own simulation (the simulation into the simulation), etc. with no end. (unless the simulation is a black hole -nothing can escape from it- and therefore be useless)
I mean, things don't have to be the exact same thing, because 1. Eventhough we might know what happened, we don't know 'how' for sure (there's probably a strong personnalities factor, which are supposed to represent Great People, but it's a fail with the exception of Great Prophets maybe) 2. The premisses of every game of Civ are different from the reality, even in Earth OG starting locations, because it's a game. 3. As a game there might be some mechanics that seem different or poorer that what happened in reality in some conditions.
If I'm right, the rise & fall of civilizations have been tried to be included in Civ6 R&F, not because of gameplay issues (settling too close of a foe is the best way to be war declared and lose this city anyway in vanilla), but as an attempt to simulate a true rise & fall of civilizations, as the title claims. Well, we can see that the result was... mitigated, to say the least. Well, I'm saying that we must find better ways, persist but put more effort into this. I've tried, still in my signature, to figure out what could be a more consistent true rise & fall, and I've been inspired in this by a History book : Against the Grain : a deep History of the earlier States by James C. Scott. That's this kind of inspiration I'm referring to. And, from what I'm aware, the Fall of Rome or the Age of Discovery, or even the Industrial Revolution or the Renaissance, could be great inspirations for designing Civ. But we have to do it at the core (vanilla). Which might require too much work, and far from being simple, I agree.

 

[BuchiTaton]

Well that's what you just did in your previous sentence.

I dont think so. The general factors are quite robust, these are not definitive rules that allow us to track very specific details and more fine changes like say "this was the cause why gunpower was invented in China" or this is "the exact events that lead to western Europe to surpass China in guns tech" or say the Age of Sail started in 15th century and not 13th or 17th centuries because of X or Y. Despite this we can not discard the more evident general trends and dissmiss them just because we can not replicate more specific and detailed processes.
By the way you are ignoring some general process in your examples: Gunpowder was not even one of the relevant factors for the conquest of America, for example Cortés army in Mexico had a reduced number of arquebusiers and cannons, there are records that by the time of the siege of Tenochtitlan the Mexica knew that all they needed to evade spanish guns was count their recharge time and then take coverture, also spaniards tried to use a trebuchet (that failed and destroyed itself with their first shot) to siege since their cannons were insufficient. Crossbow showed to be a more significative weapons for the Europeans in the early conquest of America, like were also horses and steel weapons and helmets (but not body metal armor that was replaced with native cotton pad armor and wood shields).
Now the real main factor (needed even before disease) was NATIVE ALLIES, any successful european expedition allways started with native military, logitics and inteligence support, while the ones that dont ended with a handfull of ragged and malnourished europeans barely finding an outpost.
Now neither horses, steel, sailboats, guns, or the many livestock related diseases that european had were not isolated inventions(and mutations), they were the acumulate of the more populous, populated by far more time and way more massive landmass on the planet.

If we talk about "the european happens to be more dirty" and not about the whole domesticated fauna from Afroeurasia related to events like paleo-epidemics that devasted Europe since the Neolithic we would be clearly ignoring the general picture in favor of a "it should be luck" scenario.

Obviously that cannot be represented in a pangaea map, or can it ? Before the "age of sails", the African continent couldn't be bypassed to reach Asia because of strong water streams. Ironically, we could do it the same time we could reach America.

Anyway, the age of colonization in reality was a pure product of luck and randomness, so we might expect it to be the same in the game.

It seems like the main problem is to expect CIV to be a simulation like game, and it is not.
The game have all their rules like technologies, civics, militar units and eras themselves as an westerncentric historical sequence expected by players. Change it is not the most likely thing specialy when Paradox Millennia already have the "different eras" design and even they are using a clear set of conditions to trigger each of those alternate history eras, and this is because most players prefers clear rules for expected results to achieve, not a random simulation to look at resolving by itself.
So is like this that we have some scenarios:
A) The traditional CIV model of secuences were you have fixed eras, techs, civics and units so things like Sailboating, Colonization and Triangular Trade are just a serie of upgrades to expend culture/science points into get more bonus for things like trade. Colonization of what or Triangular trade with who Civ not care just add a bonus!
B) A "simulation" system that would need to change all the fixed secuences of any element of game, being replaced by a highly random and world generation based system of hundreds of factors interacting for a game where the player can barely knows or have anyting to do about it to control the result. It could sound like an exageration but if you can not put your fingers in some rules for a specific scenario is obvious that the whole system would be guideless and unpredictable.
C) Try a middle point were the general deterministic sequence that players are familiar with can be found, but instead of be a contextless name for a bonus unlocked by spent points, such historical process is a condition on game, a temporal oportunity to exploit a new part of the map and their resources.

People talking about Pangea and other not similar to recent world configuration maps are lossing the point. Most players want to recreate some know historical process, and such historical process have a biological-geological-climatological-geopraphic base, included the human evolution itself. Of course we can not explain why the French Revolution in 18th century just by geography, but is highly unlikely to expect any human prehistoric group to build on an Australia-like continent a civilization to compete with an Afroeurasia-like landmads starting isolated.
You can put all the complex rules like spread of crops, share of technologies, etc. And you could be sure that the more likely result would be for the civs from the bigger and better comunicated landmass to take the advantage There are already mathematical models about it.

Or can not we see for example that a not "similar" to real map conditions would affect historical results like expect a naval civs to do great in a world generation with little coast/sea?
A map generation that recreate Holocene Earth general configuration should be the base to ballance civs, their bonus and the whole gameplay, not a Permic Pangea or a K-T fragmented hot-house. Those alternate world generations can still be in game but are counter intuitive to expect historical civs to do something "historical" there.

 

[Naokaukodem]

I dont think so.

Maybe... but you did it ! You explained the conquest of America by geography. That it be a large or a tinier phenomenon is not a valid criteria of veracity to my eyes. (one could even see it the other way around)

By the way you are ignoring some general process in your examples: Gunpowder was not even one of the relevant factors for the conquest of America, for example Cortés army in Mexico had a reduced number of arquebusiers and cannons, there are records that by the time of the siege of Tenochtitlan the Mexica knew that all they needed to evade spanish guns was count their recharge time and then take coverture, also spaniards tried to use a trebuchet (that failed and destroyed itself with their first shot) to siege since their cannons were insufficient. Crossbow showed to be a more significative weapons for the Europeans in the early conquest of America, like were also horses and steel weapons and helmets (but not body metal armor that was replaced with native cotton pad armor and wood shields).
Now the real main factor (needed even before disease) was NATIVE ALLIES, any successful european expedition allways started with native military, logitics and inteligence support, while the ones that dont ended with a handfull of ragged and malnourished europeans barely finding an outpost.
Now neither horses, steel, sailboats, guns, or the many livestock related diseases that european had were not isolated inventions(and mutations), they were the acumulate of the more populous, populated by far more time and way more massive landmass on the planet.

However I heard somewhere that the decimation of meso-american people was most due to deceases than war, so I don't know what allies have to do with this.
And we could also argue that it's not because Afroeurasia was say, double or triple the size of Americas that it may have generated more contacts : in fact, it's not like all its parts were interacting with each others, just like in Americas. There was merchants that made some connections (silk road), but that was basically it : the majority of the population was sedentary, more than nowadays, and "expeditions" were the exception because they were hard to do. That's no random that say, chinese culture and ethnicity (all belonging to the same species so that can reproduce together) was so different from its european counterparts.
I'm not trying to sound smart or something, just saying that we could relativize the geographical importance of 'conquest of Americas'.

If we talk about "the european happens to be more dirty" and not about the whole domesticated fauna from Afroeurasia related to events like paleo-epidemics that devasted Europe since the Neolithic we would be clearly ignoring the general picture in favor of a "it should be luck" scenario.

Your "general picture" is just an interpretation among others. The fact that basically all America was conquered by Europeans and bringing their culture and building states on it is sure a large phenomenon, that, in its unilaterality, should certainly find a strong reason to that. It might be geography, temperament, abilities, culture, beliefs, etc. or a sum of all that. We better say "random" at that point, yes.

It seems like the main problem is to expect CIV to be a simulation like game, and it is not.
The game have all their rules like technologies, civics, militar units and eras themselves as an westerncentric historical sequence expected by players. Change it is not the most likely thing specialy when Paradox Millennia already have the "different eras" design and even they are using a clear set of conditions to trigger each of those alternate history eras, and this is because most players prefers clear rules for expected results to achieve, not a random simulation to look at resolving by itself.
So is like this that we have some scenarios:
A) The traditional CIV model of secuences were you have fixed eras, techs, civics and units so things like Sailboating, Colonization and Triangular Trade are just a serie of upgrades to expend culture/science points into get more bonus for things like trade. Colonization of what or Triangular trade with who Civ not care just add a bonus!
B) A "simulation" system that would need to change all the fixed secuences of any element of game, being replaced by a highly random and world generation based system of hundreds of factors interacting for a game where the player can barely knows or have anyting to do about it to control the result. It could sound like an exageration but if you can not put your fingers in some rules for a specific scenario is obvious that the whole system would be guideless and unpredictable.
C) Try a middle point were the general deterministic sequence that players are familiar with can be found, but instead of be a contextless name for a bonus unlocked by spent points, such historical process is a condition on game, a temporal oportunity to exploit a new part of the map and their resources.

A) would be meaningless according to me. Why bother ? I hapillly went from Civ1 to Civ2 because of vastly improved graphics, visibility and eye candy, and that was it ! Now that we have reach a point where 3D is presentable, I don't feel the need to go to another fold of the series if it doesn't innovate dramatically. I don't even have the problem that majority of players seems to have, it is to say end game chore. So why would I bother ?
B) would be more random, but that doesn't mean the players couldn't play it. Instead of planning (what I don't like that much by the way, and even find a bit ridiculous), they would react.
C) You mean like a semi-deterministc approach ? Or things like policy cards reflecting actual mechanics and not just random bonuses ?

People talking about Pangea and other not similar to recent world configuration maps are lossing the point. Most players want to recreate some know historical process, and such historical process have a biological-geological-climatological-geopraphic base, included the human evolution itself. Of course we can not explain why the French Revolution in 18th century just by geography, but is highly unlikely to expect any human prehistoric group to build on an Australia-like continent a civilization to compete with an Afroeurasia-like landmads starting isolated.
You can put all the complex rules like spread of crops, share of technologies, etc. And you could be sure that the more likely result would be for the civs from the bigger and better comunicated landmass to take the advantage There are already mathematical models about it.

Or can not we see for example that a not "similar" to real map conditions would affect historical results like expect a naval civs to do great in a world generation with little coast/sea?
A map generation that recreate Holocene Earth general configuration should be the base to ballance civs, their bonus and the whole gameplay, not a Permic Pangea or a K-T fragmented hot-house. Those alternate world generations can still be in game but are counter intuitive to expect historical civs to do something "historical" there.

Well Luca is certainly one of those persons who want to recreate some known historical process. As for me, I don't necessarily want them to be reproduced (I'm not that kind of History fan), but instead inject the premisses of reality for a better, more realistic and more inspired game, be it completely different from our History, but with some kind of logic even if that seems more unlikely to me now, not for recreate History willingly, but to give an organical aspect to the game that would make it infinitely replayable.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

To chime in . . .

In the past couple of years I've read a lot about 'historical' and other processes, root causes, proximate causes, etc for human societal development. That includes books like Against the Grain, Parthenogenesis, The Great Divergence, the Age of Gunpowder, River Kings, Dawn of Everything, The Earth Transformed, Horse, the Wheel, and Language,The Inheritance of Rome, Empires of the Silk Road, and others as well as forking out the money to subscribe to several archeology journals to try to keep up with the latest discoveries, interpretations, re-interpretations, and Scientific Wild-Ass Guesses in the field.

Frankly, I'm approaching burn-out on the whole topic, or would be except that just about every week there is some new thing discovered that sets off the Speculative Bump in my head: "How could Civ handle this?" - followed closely by: "Why should Civ even try?"

Which is the crux that everybody is circling: how much of all the process behind every human development since bipedal locomotion
can or should be modeled in a game? How much should be generalized or subsumed in a more bland, but also more easily understood and modeled, game mechanic?

And the additional question: how closely do we want to represent, or make it possible to represent, ANY specific historical event? That question is both extremely individual to each gamer and participant, and also, I believe, basic to each individual's enjoyment of the game. Given that, inevitably, the closer we come to any such 'model' of real events, the more complex the background requirements to make it happen are going to become and therefore, the more difficult it will be. And recognizing that, at least so far, modeling all the complexities of human and environmental developments that lead to given historical events is far beyond any meaningful current computer capability, so sooner or later (probably sooner) you have to draw a line and say: "Beyond this, it's all Smoke and Mirrors"

Finally, all these questions have to be asked and answered within the context of Civilization the game and series as it has developed. That means, barring some dramatic breakthrough, any model of human development in the game will include:

1. Free Form civilization development: any civ can develop in any direction, hindered only by terrain, climate, and neighbors, and not always much by them.

2. Lots of named individuals, from Civ Leaders to Great people to Governors, some completely fictional, some only partly so or 'popular historical' with the emphasis on the popular rather than the strictly historical. And another point, which I have not seen brought up anywhere in any Leader discussion, is that game-important Civ Leaders will be Competitive: you will not be forced to play a Civ with a complete Loser as your Leader: no Rome led by Gordian II (ruled 22 days, a Roman Record!), no Germany led by Adolph and his 12-year Reich, no Russia led by Kerensky (Nice Guy, finished Last)

3. As much historical veneer as possible: 'real' Wonders, named Unique units, buildings, structures, Civics, Social Policies, city, river, sea names, etc. This, I suspect, is where many gamers go astray: they see all the 'familiar' names on the map and think that it all means they will act like their historical counterparts (or at least, the way they think the historical counterparts acted) and when they don't, think the game got it wrong. It didn't, it was only a veneer and in places a paper-thin one.

Just thoughts, trying to summarize what I see in the on-going and numerous Forum discussions of how much, why, and whether the game should try to model Real Events . . .

 

[Naokaukodem]

Finally, all these questions have to be asked and answered within the context of Civilization the game and series as it has developed. That means, barring some dramatic breakthrough, any model of human development in the game will include:

1. Free Form civilization development: any civ can develop in any direction, hindered only by terrain, climate, and neighbors, and not always much by them.

2. Lots of named individuals, from Civ Leaders to Great people to Governors, some completely fictional, some only partly so or 'popular historical' with the emphasis on the popular rather than the strictly historical. And another point, which I have not seen brought up anywhere in any Leader discussion, is that game-important Civ Leaders will be Competitive: you will not be forced to play a Civ with a complete Loser as your Leader: no Rome led by Gordian II (ruled 22 days, a Roman Record!), no Germany led by Adolph and his 12-year Reich, no Russia led by Kerensky (Nice Guy, finished Last)

3. As much historical veneer as possible: 'real' Wonders, named Unique units, buildings, structures, Civics, Social Policies, city, river, sea names, etc. This, I suspect, is where many gamers go astray: they see all the 'familiar' names on the map and think that it all means they will act like their historical counterparts (or at least, the way they think the historical counterparts acted) and when they don't, think the game got it wrong. It didn't, it was only a veneer and in places a paper-thin one.

Just thoughts, trying to summarize what I see in the on-going and numerous Forum discussions of how much, why, and whether the game should try to model Real Events . . .

This describes Civ6 pretty well, yes. Even if I know that you don't mean there couldn't be other things. Just a kind reminder that Civ hasn't always been like that. (and, honestly, I don't see why I couldn't go back to Civ3 for example, already re-installed Civ4 now -dislike how defense is so strong and those frontiers moving make me nervous-, and tried a little bit of Civ2 what, 2 years ago but didn't end my Deity game for some reason, I was alone on a vast continent and maybe I was just bored)

 

[Evie]

I mean, no. They're not a good summary of VI. They're a good summary of Civ - I and II with their very limited array of characters are the only ones that didn't have all of this, and they were added as soon as computers can stand to have them.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

I mean, no. They're not a good summary of VI. They're a good summary of Civ - I and II with their very limited array of characters are the only ones that didn't have all of this, and they were added as soon as computers can stand to have them.

To be exact, having played Civ only since Civ II, it's my take on what the franchise has focused on and is focusing on now. Freely admit that it is possible Civ VII could go in wildly different directions as a design, but I seriously doubt it . . .

 

[Evie]

Yep. I likewise started with II (mostly - I did somewhat play the demo of OG Civilization that was on CDX94), and I would agree that what you described is civ *as a whole*. Not any specific iteration thereof.

 

[Patine]

and tried a little bit of Civ2 what, 2 years ago but didn't end my Deity game for some reason, I was alone on a vast continent and maybe I was just bored)

Space race time!

 

[Naokaukodem]

I mean, no. They're not a good summary of VI. They're a good summary of Civ - I and II with their very limited array of characters are the only ones that didn't have all of this, and they were added as soon as computers can stand to have them.

Lots of named individuals, from Civ Leaders to Great people

Weren't Great people introduced in Civ4 ? If so nothing tells they couldn't be integrated in I and II.

to Governors

Only Civ6.

As much historical veneer as possible: 'real' Wonders, named Unique units, buildings, structures, Civics, Social Policies

Civics and Social policies only in 6, in 4 and 5 under different forms.

sea names

Only Civ6, like river names, mountains/volcano names, etc... not to say they couldn't be integrated in Civ5 or earlier.

So, what's your point ? That the series has always (always ?) had some characters that did and should define it for the future ? Obviously it's wrong. What you consider must haves have been introduced in the last iteration only. Nothing tells others couldn't be added. Or substracted, like the moving frontiers of Civ4. It's useless to try to define what is Civ, at least how you try to do it with so much conservatism. I'm saying this because if that's what you really want to play, give me a good reason why you wouldn't go back to I, II, III, IV, V or VI (if you stopped playing it). Lazyness ? Lack of forum activity ? Lack of hype ? Lack of news ? If I would have to define Civ, it would just be a game where what we vaguely call "civilization" is involved, and its evolution throughout the ages, from 4000 BC to AD 2000+, not to say this fork couldn't change. That's what makes it purely and simply amazing, and it's too bad that iteration after iteration, we lose the taste of it because we know it too well. That would be about time to change it a little bit, if only to insist and magnify this extraordinary trip that became just cogs and mechanisms under players' feedback. (me included) Change the point of view. Create new horizons (inspired by History ?) Dare. It's too bad that you share the point of view of 2K that just shares your point of view. Your just poor in basically new graphical materials to speculate on. (me too, but not only, far from it !) And it's sad. Not that speculation doesn't bring its fantasms, and it's good. But better those fantasms feeded than forgotten completely.

 

[BuchiTaton]

However I heard somewhere that the decimation of meso-american people was most due to deceases than war, so I don't know what allies have to do with this.
And we could also argue that it's not because Afroeurasia was say, double or triple the size of Americas that it may have generated more contacts : in fact, it's not like all its parts were interacting with each others, just like in Americas. There was merchants that made some connections (silk road), but that was basically it : the majority of the population was sedentary, more than nowadays, and "expeditions" were the exception because they were hard to do. That's no random that say, chinese culture and ethnicity (all belonging to the same species so that can reproduce together) was so different from its european counterparts.
I'm not trying to sound smart or something, just saying that we could relativize the geographical importance of 'conquest of Americas'.

Already pointed what is obvious from a basic knowledge of early modern european expeditions in the Americas, native aid was the key for success providing food, shelter, guide, most of the troops, strategic information and the motivation to keep advancing in form of stories of riches, even an already vertical society and local elites that allowed to control a mostly native population. Disease could have decresed Mesoamerican and Andine population to half in 150 years but even 150 later native (not even spanish speaking) population still were the majority in New Spain and Peru. For example disease enter in the fall of Tenochtitlan equation until the punitive expedition of Pánfilo de Narváez arrived to arrest Hernán Cortés, an african slave in that expedition was the one introducing smallpox, a moment when Cortés already had built an army of dozens of thousands of Tlaxcaltec and Totonac allies and already was in Tenochtitlan. Also smallpox did not distinguishes native allies from enemies, both died from disease.

The whole point of diseases is ironic since zoonotic diseases are the main source of pandemics and that again play in favor of a landmass like Afroeurasia, even African diseases were a clear factor limiting the development in those regions. Like I already pointed is a very shallow perspective to look to a issue of "dirtiness" to explain the Old World diseses when there are a trancontinental millennia long history related to domestication of animals from that region.

Also, why talk about "the majority of the population was sedentary" and "expeditions" were the exception because they were hard to do"? I mean, most of Afroeurasia was in constant interaction by nets of trade, immigration waves and eventual conquest, you dont need Marco Polo expeditions to spread a disease, it can move (like products, technologies and ideas) by hand/mouth to hand/mouth in few years.

Your "general picture" is just an interpretation among others. The fact that basically all America was conquered by Europeans and bringing their culture and building states on it is sure a large phenomenon, that, in its unilaterality, should certainly find a strong reason to that. It might be geography, temperament, abilities, culture, beliefs, etc. or a sum of all that. We better say "random" at that point, yes.

I am giving names of some biogeographic factors that I think could explain the more likely reults in a broader sense. Even more I am suggesting a way to fit them in a game that already is highly geographical determinictic in its gemeplay mechanics.
So, can you do the same with all those abilities, cultures, beliefs and temperaments? (seriously temperament sound like 19th century racial theory)

A) would be meaningless according to me. Why bother ? I hapillly went from Civ1 to Civ2 because of vastly improved graphics, visibility and eye candy, and that was it ! Now that we have reach a point where 3D is presentable, I don't feel the need to go to another fold of the series if it doesn't innovate dramatically. I don't even have the problem that majority of players seems to have, it is to say end game chore. So why would I bother ?
B) would be more random, but that doesn't mean the players couldn't play it. Instead of planning (what I don't like that much by the way, and even find a bit ridiculous), they would react.
C) You mean like a semi-deterministc approach ? Or things like policy cards reflecting actual mechanics and not just random bonuses ?

Kind of semi-deterministic but also they are supposed to be actual mechanics.

Well Luca is certainly one of those persons who want to recreate some known historical process. As for me, I don't necessarily want them to be reproduced (I'm not that kind of History fan), but instead inject the premisses of reality for a better, more realistic and more inspired game, be it completely different from our History, but with some kind of logic even if that seems more unlikely to me now, not for recreate History willingly, but to give an organical aspect to the game that would make it infinitely replayable.

Finally CIV is a game, the representation it does of history good or bad is a gamified abstraction, so bring "X specific historical event" as something that should be simulated in game but without an actual suggestion of how to do it add nothing to change the game. Same goes to fear to propose mechanism to generate any whatever kind of historical development. The factors behind real history development could be nebulous but a game, one that could be played for real, need some rules even if those dont have 100% academic consensus behind them.

 

[Naokaukodem]

Already pointed what is obvious from a basic knowledge of early modern european expeditions in the Americas, native aid was the key for success providing food, shelter, guide, most of the troops, strategic information and the motivation to keep advancing in form of stories of riches, even an already vertical society and local elites that allowed to control a mostly native population. Disease could have decresed Mesoamerican and Andine population to half in 150 years but even 150 later native (not even spanish speaking) population still were the majority in New Spain and Peru. For example disease enter in the fall of Tenochtitlan equation until the punitive expedition of Pánfilo de Narváez arrived to arrest Hernán Cortés, an african slave in that expedition was the one introducing smallpox, a moment when Cortés already had built an army of dozens of thousands of Tlaxcaltec and Totonac allies and already was in Tenochtitlan. Also smallpox did not distinguishes native allies from enemies, both died from disease.

The whole point of diseases is ironic since zoonotic diseases are the main source of pandemics and that again play in favor of a landmass like Afroeurasia, even African diseases were a clear factor limiting the development in those regions. Like I already pointed is a very shallow perspective to look to a issue of "dirtiness" to explain the Old World diseses when there are a trancontinental millennia long history related to domestication of animals from that region.

I was just objecting there that if diseases were a major factor for conquest of America, allied natives would have nothing to do with it. Like, diseases are commonly evocated to say that there haven't been a genocide (North America principaly I guess...), so I hardly imagine that natives could make one to their native foes.

Like I already pointed is a very shallow perspective to look to a issue of "dirtiness" to explain the Old World diseses when there are a trancontinental millennia long history related to domestication of animals from that region.

That you say ! By the way "Dirtiness" wasn't supposed to explain the old world diseases directly but the immunity its inhabitant have to them, and the fact that they can bring them with them as "healthy carriers".

Also, why talk about "the majority of the population was sedentary" and "expeditions" were the exception because they were hard to do"? I mean, most of Afroeurasia was in constant interaction by nets of trade, immigration waves and eventual conquest, you dont need Marco Polo expeditions to spread a disease, it can move (like products, technologies and ideas) by hand/mouth to hand/mouth in few years.

Because the more people are in contact with each others, the more it favoritizes the spread of a disease. The less people travel, the less likely a disease is to become pandemic. That seems pretty obvious. All what I'm saying is that contacts from an end to the other end of those 3 continents were nearly 0, and contacts with a country like China were still scarce beyond silk road. And immigration waves and conquests all had a limited range, with the exception maybe of patoralists invading Europe. Now surely a disease can move by contact to contact, but more slowly than if people were "globalized". You can surely still argue that for millenias spans of time, it doesn't change much, but we can argue that's it's the same thing in Americas where Homo Sapiens had largely the time to establish itself as a sedentarian farmer/breeder and generate diseases of all sorts, even if the continent was half big ; at that point we talk about the same magnitude.

So, can you do the same with all those abilities, cultures, beliefs and temperaments? (seriously temperament sound like 19th century racial theory)

By abilities, I mean soft power, by culture, I mean for example greed (or needs = power) or conquest reflexes inherited from roman empire and later barbarian invasions and constant wars, by beliefs I mean the need to expand its religion to the whole humankind (christianity), and by temperament I mean aggressive. All those have little to see with the size or configuration of Afroeurasia.

Finally CIV is a game, the representation it does of history good or bad is a gamified abstraction, so bring "X specific historical event" as something that should be simulated in game but without an actual suggestion of how to do it add nothing to change the game.

That, is aiming at Luca isn't it ?

Same goes to fear to propose mechanism to generate any whatever kind of historical development.

Is it aiming at me ?

The factors behind real history development could be nebulous but a game, one that could be played for real, need some rules even if those dont have 100% academic consensus behind them.

I totally agree.

 

[Evie]

Other than missing the forest for the trees in Boris's post...

He's described three general trends, and THEN giving examples of each. Not all examples are found in every game, but the trends themselves, in different forms, are,

The trends are:
-Free form civilization development (there is little to no restriction placed on how you can play your civ)
-Importance of named characters in the game. That was always there with the civ leaders, but the great leaders, future great people (military at first, scientific in the expansions) had distinct names from civ 3 onward, and the earlier game also had random pop up rankings of the civs in your game appear periodically credited to the Venerable Bede or other actual historians - more named characters.
-As much historical veneer as possible. Wonders, units, technologies, governments, (all of them in every game) etc that reflect our understanding of history, later joined by unique units (3), buildings (4), policies in various forms (4 onward), and so on.

Nobody is saying all those examples are in every game. But there is some of them in each game, and they've been consistent trends in every Civ from at least II onward - and the games have been constantly building more and more in developing along those trends.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Other than missing the forest for the trees in Boris's post...

He's described three general trends, and THEN giving examples of each. Not all examples are found in every game, but the trends themselves, in different forms, are,

The trends are:
-Free form civilization development (there is little to no restriction placed on how you can play your civ)
-Importance of named characters in the game. That was always there with the civ leaders, but the great leaders, future great people (military at first, scientific in the expansions) had distinct names from civ 3 onward, and the earlier game also had random pop up rankings of the civs in your game appear periodically credited to the Venerable Bede or other actual historians - more named characters.
-As much historical veneer as possible. Wonders, units, technologies, governments, (all of them in every game) etc that reflect our understanding of history, later joined by unique units (3), buildings (4), policies in various forms (4 onward), and so on.

Nobody is saying all those examples are in every game. But there is some of them in each game, and they've been consistent trends in every Civ from at least II onward - and the games have been constantly building more and more in developing along those trends.

And please note that nowhere in my post did I intend to make any value judgement on whether any of the trends in Civ franchise development are good or bad. That is a strictly an individual judgement and it will to some extent be different for every single gamer. - and Dog Knows, I've commented enough in these Forums over the years on what I personally find 'good' or 'bad' in the game!

The only thing that can be said (and demonstrated by commercial statistics) is that the trends have appealed to larger and larger numbers of gamers (and, again by demonstratable commercial statistics, appealed to more than the different systems packages in similar games like Humankind or Old World: both good games, but without anything like the player base that Civ has had for decades). That alone guarantees that the indicated trends are not likely to abandoned or modified out of existence by the developers in any near-future edition of the game, regardless of what we here in this small corner of the internet think or want.

 

[Naokaukodem]

Other than missing the forest for the trees in Boris's post...

He's described three general trends, and THEN giving examples of each. Not all examples are found in every game, but the trends themselves, in different forms, are,

The trends are:
-Free form civilization development (there is little to no restriction placed on how you can play your civ)
-Importance of named characters in the game. That was always there with the civ leaders, but the great leaders, future great people (military at first, scientific in the expansions) had distinct names from civ 3 onward, and the earlier game also had random pop up rankings of the civs in your game appear periodically credited to the Venerable Bede or other actual historians - more named characters.
-As much historical veneer as possible. Wonders, units, technologies, governments, (all of them in every game) etc that reflect our understanding of history, later joined by unique units (3), buildings (4), policies in various forms (4 onward), and so on.

Nobody is saying all those examples are in every game. But there is some of them in each game, and they've been consistent trends in every Civ from at least II onward - and the games have been constantly building more and more in developing along those trends.

I would personnally more define the series as I already did and maybe adding a certain degree of granularity.

Named characters for example are not so important, they are completely anecdotal for great people, and even leaders could be replaced by their country names.
The last one is like breaking down an open door... but thx for the input, I feel smarter now...

Talking about missing the forest for the trees, if would rather say the tree are your 3 categories and the forest the examples, but oh well, I guess you just want to be right.

That alone guarantees that the indicated trends are not likely to abandoned or modified out of existence by the developers in any near-future edition of the game, regardless of what we here in this small corner of the internet think or want.

"Free form civilization development" doesn't mean much, you are expected to play the game as you want/can/must like in any other video game, so for sure they will not go away with this and transform Civ into a visual novel.

I really don't know what you are trying to prove here.

 

[luca 83]

I would personnally more define the series as I already did and maybe adding a certain degree of granularity.

Named characters for example are not so important, they are completely anecdotal for great people, and even leaders could be replaced by their country names.
The last one is like breaking down an open door... but thx for the input, I feel smarter now...

Talking about missing the forest for the trees, if would rather say the tree are your 3 categories and the forest the examples, but oh well, I guess you just want to be right.



"Free form civilization development" doesn't mean much, you are expected to play the game as you want/can/must like in any other video game, so for sure they will not go away with this and transform Civ into a visual novel.

I really don't know what you are trying to prove here.

In this section you can not discuss slavery can not be treated because a controversial topic. Fixed leaders cannot be abolished: one can only speak infinitively of civilization, leaders, but no idea of mechanics

 

[Evie]

They may be the forest for the tree in the context of what you think Civ is or should be. Which I will say you are entitled to think whatever you would think about what civ should be. That said, not interested personally in those ideas, and I've lost interest in arguing against game designs I'm not interested in

But in the context of your response to Boris, no. Boris described trends, then gave examples of those trends. You ignored the trends entirely, and treated his post as if he was claiming that all of those examples had been in every game. That'S objectively a misinterpretation of what Boris said, and you addressed that misinterpretation instead of what he actually said. Forest for the tree.

 

[leif erikson]

Moderator Action: Trolling and the responses to it deleted. Please express your opinions, but do not attack one another.

 

[vorlon_mi]

My personal definition of what makes a game "Civ" centers on the idea of building an empire "that will stand the test of time." Each game in the franchise builds on that premise, adding more detail and richness to the various parts of the empire that the player can build. A few examples: Civ2 added discrete trade units to the map, along with diplomat and spy units. Civ3 added culture and cultural borders, along with additional victory conditions. Civ4 introduced religion, with religious buildings and religious units; Civ4 also added richness and variety to great people. Civ5 changed the tiles on the map, combat mechanics, and how the game treats governments. Civ6 changed the ways that cities are managed, the way roads are built, and added governors and dozens of policy cards to define one's government. My list isn't meant to be exhaustive; each game in the franchise, including BE, made many more changes than the ones I listed here.

I included BE(RT) in this list because it highlights the 3rd trend from Boris's post -- or more precisely, a gap in that trend. All of the techs, all of the leaders, all of the affinities in Beyond Earth were created FOR THAT GAME. No veneer of history. No familiar place names or people names. Many folks who posted in the Beyond Earth forums on this site have proposed that it is that *lack* of connection to history that contributed to BE's unfavorable perception among the Civ fans. Even though I enjoy BERT very much, especially since I feel it meets trends 1 and 2 and I look past trend 3, I can see where others might not.

A "little thing" that I would like to see in Civ7 are features that improve my ability to build my empire in interesting and fun ways. I miss the "Economic Overview" or "Diplomacy Summary" screens from Civ3, BERT, or even the BUFFY mod for Civ4, as a way to summarize my empire. Although (deep down) I prefer the worker units from Civ3/4/5 and BERT to Civ6's builders, I wish that builders had more charges in the base case so that I have to build them less often. I'd rather focus on what the workers/builders do for my empire than keep creating them because they're scarce. I love the different victory conditions across the franchise; a little thing that I would like to see is innovation in VCs that lead me to build my empire differently.

More fidelity to real-life history doesn't, in my judgement, improve the empire building core of the game. New mechanics for colonies -- such as Civ3 outposts or Civ4 breakaways -- could be interesting. I have little interest in empires that have built-in decay or revolt features. I expect to compete with the AI (or humans) to build a better empire to win the game, within the game's model and approximations of how empires work.

 

[luca 83]

You are wrong are important decadence, dynasties: first because the more you have choices differences greater and interesting the game and how to have 4 dice the combinations are many more, then historically the Middle Ages and the dark ages have prepared the Renaissance: it is not only a matter of technological discoveries and cultural fervor, the rediscovery of antiquity of Latin texts, Greek, cultural improvement, read the code lebowitz a sci fi story