Prehistory

[Greek Stud]

Maybe "High Priest" is the appropriate word from Anthropology of Mystics and Religion. err

Priests can remain throughout time, but maybe as you move latter in the tech tree, particular secular governments thwart influence on particular laws, and continue to work on other laws.

Maybe including different Priest units? But that can be overwhelming. I think a unified High Priest with identity towards a chosen religion. Maybe adding a Religion screen, you can ban or allow particular religions or control the religion you promoted through time. As the Byzantine's you make the Eastern Orthodox Church and have a right of religion (like right of passage) that links the Russian Orthodox Church or Roman Catholic Church. During peace time, you can go on missionaries and convert tons of people to dominate global thought and opinion. On your Religion screen you prescribe Canon Law, and your followers react to those laws the same way they react to their national Constitution.

If you persuade enough people to convert you can control opinion in particular aspects...

Right of Religion prohibits you from converting followers of that religion.

 

[AA-battery]

Hmm, Pretty interesting, but isn't it a bit too early for prehistory to worry about this?

 

[rhialto]

I'd say you do need mining for bronze working. Tin ore isn't known for lying around on the surface waiting to be picked up by any old Joe walking along.

 

[croxis]

I still have a hard time seeing a formal pre-hirtory era as fun. If such a period lasts only 5-10 turns, then what is the point? Such an era shouldn't be added for the sake of being added. If I can't build cities, or work on tiles, or build units, then what is the point? How will the actions in such an era help my civilization 100 turns later?

One prospect is having many (depending on map size, 25-100) proto-civilizations. Civilizations require room to prosper (have you played with 31 civs on a tini map?), these proto civs and you will fight until the proper conditions are met to establish civilization. This would cause both variability in the exact numbers and help randomize what civilizations occure in the world.

The downside of this model is that the player can't set exactly how many or what AI civs. Such a selection would make this pre-history period usuless and boring (would probably be bypassed).

 

[Greek Stud]

Pre-History is the perfect time to introduce Priest units. That was the first form of government. Your High Priest ruled the tribe, made sacrifices, predicted the future, recruited tribesmen to war, etc.

Also tribes should be able to post huts on Civilization's territories, and if you dont destroy them they can become a domestic disturbance. Converting your workers and units, pillaging roads, and attacking weak cities. Tribes should be able to capture cities, there would just be an ethnic disparaty. So if you didn't raise enough units to turn your hut into a settler, you can build a tribal group to take someone else's city. This also fits in with rebel groups in the modern world, trying to do the same thing.

 

[Spatula]

I still have a hard time seeing a formal pre-hirtory era as fun. If such a period lasts only 5-10 turns, then what is the point? Such an era shouldn't be added for the sake of being added. If I can't build cities, or work on tiles, or build units, then what is the point? How will the actions in such an era help my civilization 100 turns later?

What would be the point in a 5-10 turn era? None. But that's not what's being proposed. I think someone said 5-10 turn techs, maybe that's where you got it from. Or perhaps I'm just not seeing something (not sarcasm btw, I really do miss stupidly important things).

What you have to ask yourself is what set proto-civs apart from the other nomadic tribes that made them predominant? There's obviously something in pre-history that dictates what tribe will become a full-blown civilization.

I know Civ is mostly about changing history, but there has to be some basis in history otherwise there's nothing to change. And a big part of a civ's early history is what their pre-history was like.

Remember, 'history' is only the advent of writing. And just because you don't know how to write it doesn't make you a patheticly primitive civilization where you can't do anything. Look at the Celts - they managed to get along with writing for centuries (ok they didn't advance much, but they had the basics required to survive).

I do like the idea of being semi-barbaric when you start. You can build huts and workers, and from there you learn how to mine, irrigate, build roads, build cities, and then finally how to write, bringing you into the Ancient Era. Many people are saying about lengthening the game - since Civ is alternative history, and not sci-fi, then going back is the only solution. Of course, that doesn't matter if you think the game's length is fine.

 

[croxis]

we must remember that some of civ is already in pre-history. writing is a tech in the MIDDLE of the ancent era (after alphabet which i think is inaccurate, but thats another thread altogether). Part of the problem here is that the definition of a civilization isn't formalized. Depending on the definition used the celts could be an example of a civilization, or nothing more than a culture group. Cities also existed during prehistorical era, but (again depending on the definition) wern't reguarded as a civilization. I'd have to research the definition part, and the pre-history of humanity to get a better feel of how it could be historically simulated and fun. but that will have to wait until after my physics midterm tomorrow.

i'm just one of those people who is reluctent to make more without considering its vaule and fun factor. More things doesn't always make a game more fun.

 

[Spatula]

I do think it's wrong where writing is, since it's a definition of the beginnings of history.....although no, it doesn't equate to being a civilization. But I'm not saying you can't be a civ without writing - indeed, under the model proposed you'd be a civ already (albeit semi-barbaric).

And you're right: 'more' doesn't mean 'more fun'. But I think that in this case, the more that would be added would make it more fun.

PS: I think Alphabet is stupid too. At the very least lump it into one with Writing (to make Writing a start tech), if the ore-history thing doesn't come about.

 

[croxis]

I don't think the ancent era means start of history persay. The early segments of the ancent era in civ 3 include pre-histroy, as per textbook definition. Honestly is any techs should be considered of upmost importance it should be writing and the number 0. If eras were kept in the current form (While I think they should be dumped out of the window, a compramise could be reached making era transitions more soft), these should be the main transition points from pre-hirtory to ancent history and from acent history to middle age history, respectivly.

In the meanwhile, I suggest reading here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilization

and here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilization

and here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prehistory

 

[Stid]

interesting subject. im all in favour of the idea wud be cool to see little stone towns as well

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Well, as I said above, I still feel that there should be no 'prehistory' era, per say, but there should be a seperate Ancient and Classical Era! Oh, and the game SHOULD start earlier-say around 6000 BC! This is especially true given that archaeologists seem to be constantly unearthing ever more ancient towns and cities in places like Africa, the Middle East and South America!!!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[AA-battery]

Oh, and the game SHOULD start earlier-say around 6000 BC! This is especially true given that archaeologists seem to be constantly unearthing ever more ancient towns and cities in places like Africa, the Middle East and South America!!!

No, the game can't start earlier because all the civs weren't around back then. You only mentioned a few places were civs have started back then but yet the time has to start when all civs were partially existing. The Greeks were around long before Romans existed so you cannot start time when Greeks first came into view. As for civs like America, there was still people settleing in the area but they may not have called themselves "Americans" in 4000 B.C. Many civs didn't call themselves their modern names back that long ago.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

I have just a few words for you AA-Battery: 'Its JUST a game'. Of COURSE they didn't call themselves by their current names, but many of the civs who went ON to become the nations we know today can trace their roots back to around 5000 to 6000 BC! Of course, with civil wars, name changes each era and minor nations, it WOULD be possible to have NOTHING but truly ancient civs at the very start of the game, but adopting more modern names as they go and/or breaking away to form the modern states we recognise today (like the US breaking away from the British Empire!)

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[AA-battery]

Yeah okay, I'm just saying that the game shouldn't begin that early unless we do have a prehistoric era. No need to CAPITALIZE certain letters.

 

[AA-battery]

At the beginning of the game in the ancient era, you may not even know the wheel but yet you may search and find luxuries. To me this makes no sense. In the prehistoric era there should be techs that allow to have these luxuries on the map. Also I want to add in that the prehistoric era should be an option. You may want to select it if you are a beginner civver and want to learn game actions step by step and what the actions do. I mentioned this earlier in this thread.

 

[frekk]

No, the game can't start earlier because all the civs weren't around back then.

Why not? All the civs weren't around in 4000 BC either.

You only mentioned a few places were civs have started back then but yet the time has to start when all civs were partially existing.

Not all civs were partially existing in 4000 BC. There was no "civilization" in Scandinavia in 4000 BC for instance.

As for civs like America, there was still people settleing in the area but they may not have called themselves "Americans" in 4000 B.C.

And what part of the world were there no people in 6000 BC? The area around Washington DC didn't look much different in that respect between 4000 and 6000 BC, and neither did alot of other places in the world. If "people" is enough to call it a civilization, then 6000 BC is pretty much the same as 4000 BC. If you need towns and agriculture to be called a civilization, then there will still lots of places - like the US - that had no civilization in either 4000 or 6000 BC.

It really doesn't make much difference.

 

[AA-battery]

So what? Was there even civilization back in that time? Doesn't matter because we need to get back on topic as I tried to do in my last post. Anydangway if you have the prehistoric option on MAYBE the game should start at 6000 B.C.

 

[Licentia]

What makes the question stupid? Surely I can know how to derive power from the motion of electrons without knowing how to construct a transportation device using a spinning disk.


On prehistory: Sounds good. It's about time that Civ started to adress that period of time that came just before civilizing. I've always thought that one should have to research "Roadbuilding" "Irrigation" and "Mining" if they are mentioned as technologies in the game.

Do you not need something to spin to create electricity?

 

[Licentia]

Anywhoo, a number of Pre-Civilization technology would sere to be quite interesting. It could also be fun to allow cities to quicky relocate during this sort of semi-nomadic phase so that you could resettle to that perfect city location that's just 2 squares away from where you built (That option would cease to exist after you "civilize," so you would have to make your choices fairly quickly.)

That would be awesome!! You would just live in a tent rather than a city. Then you'd have time to uncover the map before you build a city. Then you won't end up building that first city in a crappy place. The question would be how you get tech advances without trade from roads.

You can have techs like roads, irrigation, community, weapons, woodworking, cloth making, settlers, etc. Then after discovering Settlers the period ends and you start a town and start the next age.

This would be a fantastic idea!

 

[AA-battery]

Yeah, I like the tent idea. Symbolizes nomadic movements.