New City Spawning Idea

[Greek Stud]

An idea I just came up with would be to have a playable version on Civ 4, that on real maps, real cities emerge instead of being established by settlers. This could happen in two alternative ways:

either these real maps, follow historic data, and cities emerge with real city names with reasources that make them comparatively important as they had been

or

using the real maps, if you have your population grow too large, then an automated Settler/Coloniser leaves the city and plants a new one, with geographical accurate names and locations.
-----
Some cities have been held by numbers of civs, considerably in the Middle East. Maybe with appropriating data that gives particular names to this cities will also change the name to each Specific Civ, and how they named when they conquered. If you play India, and conquer all the way to Greece, then no data will be assigned to alter the name but you can choose between past names, and ethnic citizens react accordingly.
-----
The background info with this idea mixes with the ethnic identity ideas I wrote about in the Pre-History thread. Controlling ethnicities is vital to stability, keeping them happy through Constitutional Law and/or Canon (Personalized Religous) Law. Playing around with your civs minds can be fun. Maybe even options for the Military Leader to journalise the Civs Wars, and if you are France, as like Napolean did, you can create fake journals of Wars that effect your countries perception of stability.
-----
Citizens react to each (occupier, ethnic city name, Constitutional Law, Religious Law, War Journals, Small/Large Wonders) based on a simple point system manipulated differently by each ethnicity. Certain ethnicities are tolerant of particular points, while others favor or dislike particular points. An additional hostility account follows races or religions that continuously are at unrest with certain points. If the Afrikans keep attacking the Zulu, they will mark up hostility points that cause corruption between those groups. All this does is add the corruption of cities onto the large map. With all this customization, you will be free to write a detailed history. And be a true leader to try to unify your civ. If you have writen different doctorines of War History it make rack up hostility points between ethnicities, until the truth is documented. Or having the Hagia Sophia in Ottoman Turkey makes the Byzantine Greeks hostile.

 

[Spatula]

Or having the Hagia Sophia in Ottoman Turkey makes the Byzantine Greeks hostile.

Having it in modern Turkey still makes the modern Greeks hostile - which just goes to show how spot on you are. This is a very real element of any civilisation - the 'they did x to us' thing. I know some people hate the idea of building the Pyramids in a non-African civ; well maybe if you built a wonder outside of its culture group then the culture group it 'belongs' to will get a little angrier at you. It would make you think twice about building wonders, which are way too over-powered.

 

[Spatula]

PS: And in some other cases, they are underpowered. Take the Temple of Artemis - how does hitting a certain level of advancement suddenly make buildings disappear throughout your Empire?

 

[rbis4rbb]

PS: And in some other cases, they are underpowered. Take the Temple of Artemis - how does hitting a certain level of advancement suddenly make buildings disappear throughout your Empire?

Because they spent time on the actual conquests?

 

[sir_schwick]

I would like to see citizens emigrate from cities whenever they become unhappy in the city. You can build settlers, or naturally let them build new citeis.

 

[Spatula]

Because they spent time on the actual conquests?

I don't follow.....

 

[Licentia]

Having it in modern Turkey still makes the modern Greeks hostile - which just goes to show how spot on you are. This is a very real element of any civilisation - the 'they did x to us' thing. I know some people hate the idea of building the Pyramids in a non-African civ; well maybe if you built a wonder outside of its culture group then the culture group it 'belongs' to will get a little angrier at you. It would make you think twice about building wonders, which are way too over-powered.

I like it. If Russia builds the pyramids then the Egyptions will get pissed.

 

[Trade-peror]

I feel that this is too much of a connection between real history and Civ, which should allow for alternate history. How could it be fair if a particularly powerful wonder happened to have belonged to a certain civ in reality, giving everyone else a disadvantage? If this general philosophy of Civ is extended, it becomes easy to argue that until 1776 there cannot be a civ called the Americans, and that by the Industrial Revolution, the civs of the Incas, Mayas, Iroqouis, Sioux, Babylonians, Sumerians, Hittites, Romans, Carthaginians, and others must not exist, no matter how well they perform in the game, because of their performance in real history! Clearly this would not make for a very fun game at all. I therefore recommend that Civ remain detached from the events of actual history and simulate what could have happened rather than what did happen, because I could as well go read a history book if I wanted to know what really happened.

 

[rbis4rbb]

I don't follow.....

Well, I think they put the new wonders way behind the design of the Conquests.

 

[Greek Stud]

I feel that this is too much of a connection between real history and Civ, which should allow for alternate history. How could it be fair if a particularly powerful wonder happened to have belonged to a certain civ in reality, giving everyone else a disadvantage? If this general philosophy of Civ is extended, it becomes easy to argue that until 1776 there cannot be a civ called the Americans, and that by the Industrial Revolution, the civs of the Incas, Mayas, Iroqouis, Sioux, Babylonians, Sumerians, Hittites, Romans, Carthaginians, and others must not exist, no matter how well they perform in the game, because of their performance in real history! Clearly this would not make for a very fun game at all. I therefore recommend that Civ remain detached from the events of actual history and simulate what could have happened rather than what did happen, because I could as well go read a history book if I wanted to know what really happened.

I think you are refering to the Small/Large Wonder link to corruption.

Let's look at the Hittite Kingdom. Pretty much after the Bronze Age, they disappeared in Real History. But if you manage to ward off the Egyptians, Assyrians, Persians, Greeks and Phoenicians what fate do you have in future wonders?

The Hittite Race have favoring cultural points. Under particular Constitutional Laws and Religious Laws they favor ideas/philosophies that coincide with these points. Small/Large Wonders are not attached to a Civ, they have a point system that relate to the laws you adopt in your Constitution and Religion. If you manage to build wonders that complement your ethnicities traits, you can continue into the future. This also leaves your Civ open to acculturation, and neighboring Civs may leave their country and come join your cities. These foreigners will have different ethnic point values that will help you favor different Small/Large Wonders. So the Hittites would still find inventing the internet as favorable, or militaristic valued wonders are more popular than seafaring wonders. Most local citizens would favor any wonder their mothercountry builds, it is the other Civs that can become scornful.

-----
Maybe the solution to modern civs would be to have them under a colonial group. That way if you play one group, then the map begins with related civs: America, Canada, Australia, Netherlands, Britain, France, Portuguese, China, Japan and Afrikans. Then the map can be scattered with various tribes that can become Civilized.
-----

 

[Trade-peror]

Actually, I was not being too specific, but I just meant that going in this direction of forcing a reconstruction of real history might be too constraining.

For example, the Hittite kingdom, according to this philosophy of pertaining to real history, must disappear after the Bronze Age, regardless of the player's performance in the game, because in reality they did not survive beyond the Bronze Age.

If, however, we allow that something else might happen if the player playing as the Hittites managed to ward off its enemies, then we must also allow that something else might happen if the Sumerians happened to build the Pyramids before the Egyptians (and was therefore part of the Sumerian culture, not the Egyptian), or if certain ethnicities had developed different preferences and views. Otherwise, the game concept would be inconsistent and incohesive.

Overall, I think your ideas are interesting, but that they should be applied more generally, more broadly, without getting so specific to what actually occurred in real history.

 

[Sir Bugsy]

So if Russia builds the pyramids, they are a Russian tradition in this new world you have created. The Egyptians don't have a history of building the pyramids in this new world, just in RL. Please don't mix up RL and Civ. The whole concept of rewriting history is what makes it fun.

 

[Greek Stud]

Yea I see what you both are saying. It makes sense. So if a particular Civilization builds a wonder, instead of it having negative effects, it can alter opinions of your citizens. Like if you keep building Pagan Wonders (State of Zues, Oracle) then your race gain points in how they favor particular laws or countries. I like that.

The Religion Law screen should also make it possible to keep a version of religion going into modern times. Only if other civ religions start outlawing another religions practices do those two religions have conflict. Like if Rome wants to remain Pagan and you are the Byzantines and want to remain Eastern Orthodox it is fine. But if the Orthodox church out laws Paganism, the Romans versus the Byzantines grow hostility towards each other.