Yeah, a prehistoric CIV would be something very interesting, but I also don't think it should be part of the main game. Perhaps something like Beyond the Earth. It could be called "Before Civilization", as the true western concept of civilization does not relate to prehistory (The concept as we know it today was developed arround the 19th century evolutionist theories and the early 20th century historical-cultural perspective. It is stated that it actually began in 4000/3500 BC - the
terminus post quem in which we play civilization games).
Mmm. We've had beyond earth, colonization, lots of scenarios... I'd love to pay for a spin off game called "sid meiers precivilization" - a whole new game.
Based on not founding cities, you set up nomadic camps. The technologies are things like stone, flint, rope, cloth, fire... The wonders are prehistoric cave paintings and statuettes... Civilizations are homo sapiens, neanderthals, homo florens, homo erectus... Religions are language streams... Megafauna pose a threat... The game builds through gradually improving your clans population, wise elders, art, weaponry etc so that you build up a surplus of everything until you win the game by settling a city.
Hope i'm not wastinmy million dollar idea... Firaxis should probably focus on civ6 for now
npossibleu 251 - Nomadic camps, wonders, megafauna as a threat are nice ideas. But I don't think language = religion or human species = civilization is a good perspective. Personally, a game where you actually develop the path for founding a CIVILIZATION as it is recognized in civ VI, for a large number of thousands of years (100.000 or 50.000), would be much more interesting.
i would call it pre flood civilizations, the four tech are though similar, language stream looks good, being the other agriculture, tool making, and astronomic buildings/gathering; megafauna also present, but also some Dino's and Giants all over... the flood come as triggered event and all techs become available, plus some minor issues, like being totally wiped out from the flood or the giants prior to reach an high altitude point in the map in time, or in a settler/boat/ark if no high points are near enough...
Lazy Sweeper - I wouldn't buy your idea. It is to much of a fantasy game.
Here is my perspective on how such a game should be:
-
Residential AND Logistic encampments - which is the basic notion for settlement in prehistory (paleolithic and neolithic). Residential settlements are encampments which stand on the center of a region (it is the core settlement) from which the population go around logistic encampments in order to collect a diversity of resources (hunt, gathering, flint, ...). If you consider it well, it is a system similar to the district system from civ VI, and actually means a symbiosis with the map. The way a city is designed in Civ VI is the way prehistroic societies actually lived. Of course these encampments should become useless at some time, when the resources become sparse or the climate changes.
-
Resource gathering - there should be no actual resources on the map. The resources you gather should reside upon the logistic encampments you build (something like districts). A Hunting Camp on grassland should provide more food than a hunting camp on hills. A gathering camp on forest should provide a lot more food than a gathering camp on tundra. There could even be knapping camps (for stone tools) and symbolic camps (for parietal art or, alter, megalithic monuments).
-
Climate Change - the amount of resources you receive from a camp should be based upon three things: 1) the type of terrain (and/or adjacent terrains); 2) the amount of time you are acquiring resources (resources decay while you are exploring a region); 3) climate change. this means that a residential encampment ( and therefore all the logistic encampments associated to it) muse be moved/destroyed and created during the game. Earth climate must change so that players must always keep running for new settling spots. If the climate becomes colder, resources become sparse, and you may face starvation.
-
The others are the barbarians - as a civ game must have non winning factions to improve complexity, I would really like to see Neanderthals and Homo Erectus (IE, other human species) as the barbarians you found when you move to new lands. Perhaps they may even provide the ability for good relations/genetic transmissions to improve you community, and therefore act more like CS. Megafauna would be a good "barbarian" also.
-
Permanent Settlements - at the middle of the game, by combing a series of factors from the tech tree and the cultural progress, a player should be able to settle down permanent settlements and start to research techs that actually provide the location of true civilization non-strategic resources (pig, wheat, dyes...). This stands for the neolithic revolution.
-
Progression towards symbolic thinking - the aim of the game should be for a player to settle the basis for a civilization (France, Germany, Egypt, Babylonia, China...). So, the cultural development should be separated from the tech tree and must progress from a simple to a complex society (abstract thinking - art - cult of the ancestors - social organization). At the end of this path (which should have many branches and faces) a player may actually pick a civilization and go from a "Sid Meyer's Before Civilization" to the same map on "Civilization VI" ( archaeology from civ VI will improve a lot)
), not because they were more adapted to collect resources. Homo floresiensis is a very difficult situation, even more as recently they were dated not for 12.000 BC but for an earlier period of time. Neanderthals are not actually related to war. I mean, there are many other thesis on contact between neanderthal and sapiens. Actually, the first contact between those species was established in circa 70.000 BP (Before Present) and was rather pacific, and the species even performed interbreeding. the neanderthals may have become extinct because sapiens gained control of their territory, but it does not mean that there was any kind of physical conflict.
Thanks for opening this discussion.
