Losing

[civilizationfanatic2000]

one thing I find the game can't simulate despite it being a fascinating aspect of history is the idea of conquered civilizations coming back on their own, or even continuing without much of a fuss despite the ruling class changing. persian civilization wasn't ended by the greeks or the arabians, it just kept going. chinese civilization wasn't ended by the mongols or the manchurians either, it just assimilated them. greek civilization didn't end when they were taken over by the romans or the turks. the jews didn't have a kingdom of their own for THOUSANDS OF YEARS, but they still lived with a solid identity to the modern day. all states eventually collapsed through external or internal pressure, but the civilization that they belonged to could keep going unless they were wiped out.

with these criteria, i propose that state annihilation should be different from civilization annihilation. the former just reduces your score, but you can keep playing until you take over your conquerer's state or make your own (when the conqueror leaves). civilization annihilation happens if your people don't have enough of a cultural record and/or your conquerors want your culture gone. then you lose the game. the geographical location of your people shall always be tracked and can be controlled by the player. you will most likely always remember your homeland no matter how far you migrate unless something happens.

 

[Naokaukodem]

Yeah that was one question-suggestion from me at a point. I explained it as "playing without cities", as you should still have stuff to do even if you are conquered, in order to revive, even mutated, or absorb the conqueror. I don't remember all the ideas I put in it, but yeah it's definitively a question to ask IMO. You and me seem to have to same ideas.

 

[Bonyduck Campersang]

In the series, civilizations are states. So unless you reimagine and redesign that aspect, differentiating between the two is futile.

 

[Naokaukodem]

In the series, civilizations are states. So unless you reimagine and redesign that aspect, differentiating between the two is futile.

I don't think differenciating between the two is futile. It questions the game, the series, and it can bring new shiny ideas. Same as realism that can be an incredible inspiration for the series !

 

[Bonyduck Campersang]

I don't think differenciating between the two is futile. It questions the game, the series, and it can bring new shiny ideas. Same as realism that can be an incredible inspiration for the series !

I meant, so far civilizations have been portrayed as states in the game. Unless it is clearly defined (by whoever is suggesting) what constitutes a civilization and what constitutes a state (in-game) and which mechanics each interacts with and how, simply saying 'civilizations and states should be different' isn't very helpful.

 

[civilizationfanatic2000]

I meant, so far civilizations have been portrayed as states in the game. Unless it is clearly defined (by whoever is suggesting) what constitutes a civilization and what constitutes a state (in-game) and which mechanics each interacts with and how, simply saying 'civilizations and states should be different' isn't very helpful.

okay

civilizations: collections of people that share a common cultural origin- Chinese, Greek, Roman, etc. their culture can evolve over time, like the German civilization going from being pastoral barbarians, to being feudal Christian monarchies, and finally becoming a republic, one of the strongest in Europe. civilizations can have cultural variance within a civilization, like East to West to South to Central Germans.

states: any political organization that enforces rules over a populace and has a monopoly on violence. states can own peoples of many civilizations- like the Roman Empire did, or break apart a civilization into many states, like the Holy Roman Empire.

civilizations have pretty much nothing but culture and technological mechanics to them (tiered tech, cultural divergence, etc), being a stated civilization allows you to access the economic and political parts of the game as well as the possible enhancement of culture and technology mechanics. you can also be unstated, like the ancient Slavs or Celts.

unstated civilizations should have a 80% transparent color on the map. the option to form a state will appear as a popup. the ability to form a state is dependent on

-population centralization (surrounded by habitable land decreases this, being in a desert increases this, having a river valley increases this)
-land exploitability (clay soil , cold temperatures decrease this, hot temperatures, high amounts of sunlight, a river valley all increase this) which also increases population expansion
-distance to other stated civilizations, government is rather useful but hard to invent on one's own (the germans, celts, slavs, balts, finns, turks, mongols prove this)

you could still have fun with unstated civilizations and maybe even win the game with them

 

[Naokaukodem]

This looks like my suggestion about Civ in my signature. You would start as hunters-gatherers with no state, and could form a state by creating a city. You would have a new currency which I called "coercion" by then, with a threshold on coercion per turn that would allow you to have only 1% chance of collapse. (or more if the collapses RNG occurs during a negative event only) Coercion points would be gained by specialists like bureaucrats, officials, etc. If your civ/state collapses, then some of your cities are deserted and the population gone back to the wild. You could then try to reinvest the ruins (in case of early collapse) and build again and keep what's still there, or adopt a barbarian huners-gatherers style of life again. Note that some citizens abilities like "hunter" or "gatherer" could still be useful in such case, if they did not faded away by living in a state too long. Note also that originally, the map generator could put around you factions of the same culture than you, so that it would be easier to conquer and keep them, like the unification of China. At last, note that the 1% collapse chance would occur whatever coercion points you have and whatever the period. This could simulate the USSR collapse.

 

[BuchiTaton]

Under the model I propose of population taking a central role where the denizens (basic population unit) have three identity parameters; class (social caste), belief (religion) and heritage (ethno-cultural) any conquered (or immigrated) foreign population would keep their own identity parameters even under a ruling class of a different belief and/or heritage. So this would be the main source to possible resurgence of independent factions once a chance for revolution is reached.

Of course factors like how these populations of different identity are governed would affect their desire to uprise, the ruler(player) could pick inclusive ideologies and invest in keep them happy even at the point to integrate them as one of the main heritages and/or beliefs of their civ, a status that is limited by a number of slots from your ideologies (civics) and the need that those populations represent X percentage of your total population. As a reward from integrate a different heritage, each one come with an exclusive Tradition, that provide things like bonus or unique units, buildings, resources, etc. There would be also another way, deal with the problematic population with more oppressive ideologies included belief and heritage conversion.

Now, about playing as a non-state civ. To be honest civs "staying alive" after conquest as cultures waiting to rise again is a thing mainly for the AI. Lets be honest the avegare player would not like a game were you are expected to be conquered and wait to revolt. The CIV gameplay design suppose that you manage to be a millennial power, by far most players will not tolerate a bigger fail like be conquered even if a chance to keep playing until revolting is provided, is a psychological factor that do not deserve be planed for the player to overcome.

So...
* Cultures staying alive under foreing rule for future uprisings? YES. It could help to keep the game interesting especially late game. But mostly as a AI players thing.
* Design the game as "state less" to keep playing under foreign rule? NO. Of course in real history every civ have their low points, but that is not what most players want.

 

[civilizationfanatic2000]

Under the model I propose of population taking a central role where the denizens (basic population unit) have three identity parameters; class (social caste), belief (religion) and heritage (ethno-cultural) any conquered (or immigrated) foreign population would keep their own identity parameters even under a ruling class of a different belief and/or heritage. So this would be the main source to possible resurgence of independent factions once a chance for revolution is reached.

Of course factors like how these populations of different identity are governed would affect their desire to uprise, the ruler(player) could pick inclusive ideologies and invest in keep them happy even at the point to integrate them as one of the main heritages and/or beliefs of their civ, a status that is limited by a number of slots from your ideologies (civics) and the need that those populations represent X percentage of your total population. As a reward from integrate a different heritage, each one come with an exclusive Tradition, that provide things like bonus or unique units, buildings, resources, etc. There would be also another way, deal with the problematic population with more oppressive ideologies included belief and heritage conversion.

Now, about playing as a non-state civ. To be honest civs "staying alive" after conquest as cultures waiting to rise again is a thing mainly for the AI. Lets be honest the avegare player would not like a game were you are expected to be conquered and wait to revolt. The CIV gameplay design suppose that you manage to be a millennial power, by far most players will not tolerate a bigger fail like be conquered even if a chance to keep playing until revolting is provided, is a psychological factor that do not deserve be planed for the player to overcome.

So...
* Cultures staying alive under foreing rule for future uprisings? YES. It could help to keep the game interesting especially late game. But mostly as a AI players thing.
* Design the game as "state less" to keep playing under foreign rule? NO. Of course in real history every civ have their low points, but that is not what most players want.

if it really isn't what most players want, i suppose it should be an option. although the player would get to control how strong the revolt, and have greater success than many revolts in the ancient or classical or medieval era because they are an omnipotent 5-D entity.

 

[civac]

In Civ4, you have unhappiness ("We want to join our motherland") in conquered cities depending on the how much of your culture is on the city tile compared to foreign culture. The effect is that conquered cities can be unruly especially if domestic tranquility is strained otherwise for example by another war. Moreover, as the conquered city produces culture over time the foreign ratio goes down and eventually the city will become assimilated. This doesn't happen quickly. One problem is that forein culture gets removed once the originating civ is wiped out. So your new cities become instantly 100% loyal then. (This may be a limitation with the game mechanics which can't depict culture for an entity that doesn't exist (anymore).)