No More Specific Cases, More Principles

Jan 13, 2022
let's start with a what if. two differences in simulating history (you can find most of these ideals just by scrolling through my profile message history)

Medieval Era- after the turn counter raises above a certain tick, all of a sudden new game mechanics focusing on holy wars and the spread of religion appear when they didn't exist before and won't exist in the other areas (at least to the same degree). also every religion is treated the same way

Principles: Ethnic Religions, Universal Religions, Four Sliding Scales. a Universal religion has a certain chance to be developed that rises in times of

-distress (economic failure, war, corruption)

-cultural intermingling

-a random Great Person comes along (the Buddha)

universal religions can spread, and bring their own culture with them. are they matriarchal? if so, most of your priests and converted rulers will be female. do they forbid incest? family trees will look a lot neater, and also help spur on the development of individualism. ethnic religions do not spread but still highly influence the culture of the civilization that has them. ethnic religions can become universal religions and vice versa. religions can range between


Egalitarian-Biased (towards one sex in particular)



let's have another

China Changes Dynasty Names- but nothing else happens

Different Tech Lines for each group of Civilization- thus railroading everyone down the same path every game

Cultural Authority, Porosity, Every Tile Has People, Communication, Societies, Non-Linear Tech (Known, Unknown, Disinterest, Interest), Empire Goals- more of a sliding spectrum between playable civilizations and the goody huts you would find everywhere (or the random tiles with people on them), more realistic tech spread, more realistic civilization emergence, more realistic colonization, more ability to diverge from real history, more ability to simulate how geography plays a role in empire formation and empire goals (China didn't want to explore the pacific because the Pacific was massive, and also because most navy battles were riverine, they had to focus on land threats, threats from the sea were plain annoying at best, and they had the world's largest economy, why would they try to do something risky that might fail?)

there are more examples. One Civ's Units Move Faster vs War Time, One Civ's Unique Unit during a time where no one else gets a Unit vs Specify Material of Weapon and Armor, Specify How The Armies are Raised and Equipped from the populace, Reward Players for Centralization By Allowing You To Choose Uniforms and How Your Army is Structured, Some Civs can survive losing vs Seperate the Civilizations From Their States

what is my point? my point is that instead of trying to simulate history via exceptions, it is better to try to simulate history via principles that offer several advantages.

-may be used everywhere it might apply
-may be mixed and matched (Greece in a tropical archipelago bordered by a passive neighbor who ignores them most of the time will develop in a very different fashion than the Greece we know )
-more immersive, produces more believable worlds, more fun gameplay (work your way from pastoral barbarians into a massive empire that the world envies)
-can be altered more easily by modders
-offers the ability to educate the youth by telling them exactly why things in history happened this way (example: 'Why did Rome fall while China put itself back together'?)
-more depth, more replayability
Last edited:
Top Bottom