1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

Progenitor Civs; My Own Answer to Genericization

Discussion in 'Civ4 - Caveman 2 Cosmos' started by Praetyre, Jan 27, 2012.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Praetyre

    Praetyre King

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2009
    Messages:
    941
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Auckland, New Zealand
    Many have previously raised the conundrum that the culture system of C2C provides in regards to starting civs. Newbies are confused over why playing as Rome doesn't give them Roman Culture right off the bat, and some in the team have proposed renaming the available civilizations so that they have no cultural associations whatsoever, such as colour coding or numbering them. I have an altogether different and more moderate, yet more radical proposal; one which will alter the very way people think of civilizations.

    I propose that, to begin with, the only available civilizations listed in the Civilopedia and available at a Prehistoric start (Advanced Start should be altered to enable adoption of culture in later eras) are those civilizations and cultures which have no known antecedents or predecessors, which I will for convenience sake refer to as Progenitor Civs. These civs would be as follows;
    Austronesians
    Balangod
    Clovis
    Han
    Indus
    Jeulmun
    Nubians
    Polynesians
    Pre Jomon
    Proto Indo Europeans
    Semites
    Xiongnu
    Zayandeh

    Every single culture, aside from a few "isolates" like the Pre-Jomon or Zayandeh, would be part of a complex cultural "tech tree" where, in addition to all the normal requirements cultures already have, the prerequisite culture would have to be present to create that culture. When Cultural Identity is discovered, the player can opt to pick his culture much like his religion, with corresponding changes to artstyle (be it in the interface, units or cities; all the usual trappings that distinguish individual civilizations) and as a result gain access to that culture's unique units and buildings. If that culture becomes extinct (none of the player's cities have any access to it's resource), the player will automatically revert to whatever culture is the next oldest and next largest, and should any culture grow to outnumber the player's parent culture, he will have the option to convert to that culture (think Aboriginal settlements turning into Australian cities, or Celtic villages into Viking ones, and so on), with corresponding changes.

    This may sound like an impossible undertaking (then again, if 4 maps are possible...), but there is precedent for it in the Rise from Erebus modmod for Fall from Heaven II; conversion between religions enables a totally different interface and music set. I don't imagine swapping unit and citystyles in this way would be too much of a stretch. A good future goal would be to differentiate each city culturally, so that a majority-Indian city conquered by the British still looks Indian and that units recruited there look like they are from the Subcontinent, not the British Isles.

    For an example of this cultural chain mechanism, consider the Proto Indo European culture/civ; under my plan, it can branch off into Armenian, Beaker, Corded Ware, Etruscan, Hittite, Iberian, Mycenaean, and Nordic cultures.

    The Beaker culture in turn can branch off into Brigante, Gaulish, Lusitanian, Pictish and Welsh cultures. Gaulish can then branch off into English culture, while Lusitanian can branch off into Brasilian culture.

    Nordic culture, meanwhile, can branch off into Sweboz culture, which in turn can branch off into Austrian, Dutch, Gothic, Holy Roman and Swiss cultures. The Dutch themselves can branch off into Boer culture.

    Etruscan culture can branch off into Byzantine culture. Lastly thus far for the descendants of the Proto-Indo-Europeans, Corded Ware culture can branch off into Lusatian and Magyar cultures.

    A chart illustrating the relationships between these cultures (those that have thus far been implemented in the game, and a few hypothetical extras I can see being included in the near future) can be found here, in this Google Document.

    You may have noticed that many of these cultures possess decidedly esoteric, archaic and abstract names. Well fear not, because these names shall not forever be affixed to your mighty civilization; over time (by era), these names will automatically be altered to different ones in accordance with the historical period. Thus, the Pre Jomon turn into the Jomon come the Ancient age, then in Classical become the Yayoi, then the Asuka in Medieval, the Edo in Renaissance, the Meiji in Industrial then finally, at the dawn of the Modern age, the Japanese. This would be a cosmetic feature that would seek to inject a greater deal of atmosphere and alienness to the historical (or alternate-historical!) periods that C2C aims to recreate. A chart illustrating these evolutions can be found in this Google Document.

    As a consequence of this plan, Revolutions would no longer cause an entirely new civilization to form seperate from it's parent in all cosmetic respects; instead, Revolutions would spawn off a new civ whose name and leadername would be randomly selected from a predetermined list assigned by culture. Thus, the revolt of an Arab city may lead to the formation of the [insert DynamicCivName title here, I'm hoping for full integration] of Syria, led by Edward Said. A very much WIP list of such cultures and their combos can be found in this Google Document.

    This is obviously very theoretical at the moment, and I think it will take a long time to fully iron out the inconsistencies and potential glitches in my proposed system, especially with so many new cultures on their way. Feel free to offer your own thoughts as to the ramifications and benefits of this system, and how you think it could be improved or implemented.
     
  2. Acularius

    Acularius King

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2012
    Messages:
    794
    Location:
    Ontario, Canada
    Wouldn't be possible to treat it the same way 'Realistic Corporations' work, which is to say from my understanding a corporation can be founded as long as you have the pre requisite techs and resources, but can't be done by yourself (The player)?

    However, once the culture is founded, it can spread naturally to other cities (favoring others depending on the vicinity), although some cultures should be possible to spread by 'on conquest', such as the Greek culture leaving a Hellenistic trail through the Middle East... a quick to build instant Greek culture spread that also decreases stability (Successor states, after fast conquest)

    Maybe similar to Europa Barbarorum, in which you have certain levels of administration for different cities. (As the game progresses you can forcibly spread you culture through buildings, administration, and eventually schools and universities?)

    Many different paths for this, and I'm going to wach it closely.

    Looking at the google document, the Maygar (Hungarians) should differ as it is different (during the migration period they came into the Carpathan Basin) from the other cultures in the areas and replace it with another balkan slavic culture (can be general, but the Serbians had a short lived Empire for a while)
    I would also tend to put the Russians as offshoots of the Vikings given how the Vikings moved through the river systems in the area of Russia.

    French I think is more of a Roman offshoot due to its classification of being a Romantic language, and unfortunately the English language is definitely a mixed language given that it went Celt, Roman, Anglo Saxon (Germanic/Viking), Norman (French Vikings) so its a difficult one, classified though as a Germanic language last I read.
    Germans should come before Vikings, 'Germania' was a term used by the Romans to describe the area. Unfortunately the area was occupied moreso by the Celts, than anything else, I would have to look up more to be sure.

    The Byzantines, are more of an offshoot of the Greek half of the Roman Empire, the area being dominated by the Orthodox Church, although I would consider it a mix, I would tend to classify it more of a Greek offshoot.

    To be fair, a lot of cultures are mixes, and a good many other were the result of Migration into an area... it would be tough but I would like to help at least in the non-coding aspect with these lists. (Help with the research?)
     
  3. strategyonly

    strategyonly C2C Supreme Commander

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2006
    Messages:
    20,563
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    MN
    @Hydro:

    Whats your take on those, two ideas? Alot of this sounds very interesting, unless you have a completely different direction already in mind?
     
  4. Gregori

    Gregori Chieftain

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2011
    Messages:
    32
    Location:
    European Union
    Quite in a direction I've thought proposing myself.
    The reason behind all this cevilizational rework is straightforward - as long as it seems that mod is moving in the direction of forging your own civilization while you play, why not to realy make the default civilizations a real "default" ones - with real possibility to decide on during the game how you want it to look like?

    So in general i support the idea.
     
  5. Hydromancerx

    Hydromancerx C2C Modder

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2008
    Messages:
    16,281
    Location:
    California, USA
    @Praetyre

    I think you need to look at Fabula Terra. It has much of what you are proposing. Here ares some examples ...

     
  6. Hydromancerx

    Hydromancerx C2C Modder

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2008
    Messages:
    16,281
    Location:
    California, USA
    Praetyre's idea has one major problem, we would need a civ made for every culture. As it is now all you need is a resource for every culture. I think he is most disappointed in the Mayan Rebels of Korea syndrome from revolutions. We must also realize that not everyone uses revolutions. What would happen if someone did not have revolutions on.

    -----

    Acularius' idea has some flaws in that if it uses the corporation system then it not only takes the spots of other corporations but then all corporation rules from civics would apply. Especially when a civic disallows corporations.

    -----

    I have a counter idea. You have a bunch of starting civs that are prehistoric in naming. Each still get the familiar "Native Culture" associated with them. Culture Trees can still be made however they would be based on resource cultures and not corporations or revolutions-like evolving.

    One thing we would need to ensure is to still have a wide diversity of starting civs. Because going from say around 40 playable civs to 13 playable civs is not good.
     
  7. Praetyre

    Praetyre King

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2009
    Messages:
    941
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Auckland, New Zealand
    That's probably doable, though like Hydro noted they'd have be counted under seperate rules than regular corporations, and in any case it would probably work better as a game option depending on player preference.

    That does make a fair bit more sense than my own conception of cultures, which had them as closer to religions. Having them use similar code to corporations keeps the whole resource dependency aspect, and even opens up some civic options (immigration, in particular) to fine tune how this mechanic plays out.

    EB was one of my original inspirations in crafting this system; you'd have to find way of making these buildings speed up the increase in your culture's % dominance in the city. I believe another mod whose name escapes me had an "Ethnic Cleanse" option to purge foreign cultures within a city, so the reverse might be possible.

    I was under the impression Hungarians were a Slavic people. If this is not the case, would they happen to be of Asiatic origin? If they are, I might place them in the Xiongnu family instead. There are no fixed slots or quotas; families are assigned purely on the basis of which civs are ancestrally linked to each other.

    The term "Viking" is really a bit of an anachronism in this context; I keep it under the Nordic name solely because there is no distinctly different Scandinavian culture before Viking times. The Russians are the main branch of the Slavic subfamily in my plan; are Slavic peoples descended from Scandinavians and not PIEs/Caucasians?

    These cultures are genetic, not linguistic in nature. The ethnicity which is called "French" today is, AFAIK, the same as that of the Gaulish people. It's a similar situation to the Vikings in some ways. As for the English, I was under the impression that the modern day peoples and culture of England were a mix of the native Celtic population (which France is an offshoot off anyway) and the French invaders from Normandy. Vikings and others had their own invasions at different times, but none save the French managed to establish the nearly a millenium old English monarchy.

    As above, the Vikings are truthfully Scandinavians, and I thought that the Caucasians came into Germany and Scandinavia at about the same time, hence their placement in the tree. Plus, it's not strictly a time-delinated tree; some of the "children" may come eras later than their brothers and sisters.

    The Byzantine Empire couldn't have existed without the Roman one, though you could make a good case for having it also require Greek culture.

    I would very much welcome that. You seem to have wider historical knowledge than I and it's always good to have an expert on these things on hand for fact-checking and verification.

    That is a good point, and I hope I can elaborate further on what I think of when I use the word "civ" in this context. Basically, a Civ is a set of attributes assigned to a culture; which of the 8 or so citystyles it uses, which of the unit artstyles it uses and what interface it uses. Aside from unique units and buildings (already covered by cultures), these are purely cosmetic details. As for Revolutions, I don't see how my plan is necessarily dependent on it. Even in the absence of your cities seceding and forming their own little fiefdoms, you will still eventually run into the opportunity to convert your civ into a more modern culture, with the incentive to do this increasing as the more modern cultures give more modern bonuses (i.e. a musket wielding unique unit as opposed to a sword wielding one).

    I don't think the method of implementation is set in stone yet for any of our plans, nor (at least for mine) is it necessarily a core part of it. Other than in this mechanical implementation, could you explain the major differences between your plan and mine?

    That's why I stipulated that later eras should have these wonders available as part of Advanced Start, so that a player could start in the Medieval area and instantly get, say, Ottoman culture if he meets the prerequisites. It would require a bit more thought in regards to terrain and starting location planning, but there's some element of that already with culturally linked starts, so it should be doable.

    Plus, it's quite possible my list of progenitors will expand with the new cultures coming in, especially where Africa and Asia is concerned. And if I've missed any out of the current crop, do tell me; I'm always open to broadening the Civ IV gene pool.

    As for Fabula Terra; it's certainly a very interesting Civ V concept, but I gather that the way that mod plans to categorize cultures is by geographic area, not genetic lineage. Thus, for instance, he groups the Ukraine next to the Romans despite the fact their only cultural and genetic link is through the PIE's, and similarly for Korea, the Russian Far East and Japan, which bear no linkage to each other besides the Ainu's possible descendance from the RFE. Also, I tend to group cultures "after the fact", that is after these cultures have been implemented in C2C, with only a few extrapolations for demonstrations sake (such as British or New Zealand culture), whereas he seems to be planning whole new cultures from the start, and individual obscure cultures are not my area of expertise.
     
  8. Hydromancerx

    Hydromancerx C2C Modder

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2008
    Messages:
    16,281
    Location:
    California, USA
    @Praetyre

    Ok maybe I am just a bit slow today. I have a few questions ...

    1. Is your idea still using the "culture resources" like what are currently in place in the game now?

    2. What about the Native Culture Unique buildings?

    3. When gaining a new culture is it based on "culture resources" or the civilization you are playing as? For instance lets say I start out as the "Clovis" a, I limited to the only Native American civs and their tree or can I say taken over a Polynesian city and gain access to Oceania civs too?

    -----

    Just letting you know in the meantime I am going to keep making the various civ wonder that provide the "culture resources". As you have seen they are very simplistic in that they basically have a regional culture and a resource. Some have extra stuff but they are not very specific in what culture takes them. I also have unique units lined up for them. You can see my thread for which civs I plan to make.

    Just know that I don't want the culture to be very restrictive in that they must follow exactly to Earth's history. That's one of the best parts about Civ4 is that you game can play out completely different from real life.
     
  9. Praetyre

    Praetyre King

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2009
    Messages:
    941
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Auckland, New Zealand
    That is correct.

    These would be replaced by the cultures of the progenitor civs

    Yes, certainly; the trees are based solely on possession of these culture resources, not on a hard and fast preset civ tech or something like that. You could take over the Xiongnu and potentially get access to Turkmen (with all the other usual prerequisites), take over Britain and gain access to the Americans and Canadians (and even the Australians and New Zealanders if you also have access to Aborigines and Maori) or nab a German city to produce Dutch culture. The possibilities are endless...

    Excellent; like I noted, my plan is about prerequisites for culture, not about altering the core mechanics of culture itself. I'm looking forward to seeing more representation to African civs; that area is among the most genetically diverse on the planet, so there's plenty of potential progenitors there.
     
  10. Hydromancerx

    Hydromancerx C2C Modder

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2008
    Messages:
    16,281
    Location:
    California, USA
    @Praetyre

    Thanks for clearing that up. I have a few more questions.

    1. Will progenitor cultures be their own playable civ or attached to existing civs, such as Egyptian civ starts with Nubian progenitor culture?

    2. If someone wants to pick say Julius Caesar as their leaderhead would they have to turn on unrestricted leaders to do it since Rome is not a progenitor civ?

    3. How are different leaders/civs restricted by the era you start? Do you see this as optional setting?
     
  11. Praetyre

    Praetyre King

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2009
    Messages:
    941
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Auckland, New Zealand
    They will be their own playable civs; all civilopedia listed civs will be progenitor ones (with later eras, you add the applicable later culture using Advanced Start or some variant thereof).

    For now, all descendant civs would be made leaderheads for the progenitor factions (thus, Bismarck, Brennus, Caesar, Churchill and the rest would be PIE leaderheads, while Abu Bakr, Ashurbanipal, Gilgamesh, Solomon and most other "Middle Eastern" leaderheads would be for the Semites). My plan is made with the implicit assumption that predefined leaderheads will be supplemented or replaced with leaderheads with defined traits. I see leaderheads being assigned to culturecivs as well, so converting your civ into Rome will give you the pick of Augustus or Caesar (Rev has code for leader switches within civs, so it should be possible in this context).

    I envision it as more of a core feature due to the fundamental changes it would make to basic mechanics of Civ IV and the ramifications these would have on gameplay. The idea is that if you pick a start date other than Prehistoric, you get to pick an appropriate culture to adopt immediately based on your tech and surrounding terrain.
     
  12. Acularius

    Acularius King

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2012
    Messages:
    794
    Location:
    Ontario, Canada
    Ah, I see, you were placing it more on the genetic side of things, then it makes sense... I always tended to place it more on the linguistic side of things which culture seems to connect to in a way (granted, it varies depending on the influence of the area) and pass on to the next generation, the accumulation of knowledge, essentially the essense of culture but not entirely correct. :(

    Clarification, is it possible to create a separate mechanic similar to 'Realistic Corporations' for culture? Not occupying the same in game space, but as two separate ideas, such as religion and corporations are considered seperate? That was more what I was getting at, to use a system similar to corporations, to represent, a better 'flow' or 'retraction' of culture based on the environment?

    To be honest, it may be wider, but I still think it is rather laymen, since I am pretty much self-taught largely due to my curiousity, so some areas I'm pretty good but others I will be lacking and need to look things up. By no means I'm an expert, I just enjoy it is all. :/
    That and sources seem to vary depending on who, when and what it was written about... topics about nationalism get messy.

    Also the reason why I tend to attach the cultures along the linguistic lines than genetic. (Neither is truly correct because culture is a damn slippery thing. :p )

    History is generally about opinions about events, and trying to back it up that it seems better than the other guy's argument/claims. (That's why nationalism is messy. XD)

    Maygars: Asiatic in origin by what I've read, originating from the Urals and being pushed out slowly, entering the Ukraine, the moving slowly down teh coast of the Black Sea and into the Basin. This is why you also get the interesting situation of Romanians speaking a language of Romantic descent whereas the Hungarians speak something of a different origin. (I recommend taking a look at it for something not quite in a nutshell)

    Genetic origin: Fair enough, talked about it before, just going through it.

    Buildings to speed up culture: Maybe you can have higher cultural output, at the cost of stability, and it would allow the culture to spread into an area that otherwise wouldn't hvae developed the culture due to terrain and resources. I always tend to think of culture was something that happened over time, and due to the enviroments and stresses upon the population.

    Germanic: Is a large term, might be an offshoot of the progenetor of Indo European, and dominate a wide area, toss in a couple of prominant tribes of history into there until they started to develop a distinct culture, such as Scandanavian (which can break down further, Noreweigan and Swedish from 'Viking' as the clans settle down) and Germanic (which can also break down further, HRE, Austria, Bohemia as a mix, and some other german states like Prussia. Being the the prime controller of Germans can make you Germany?)

    Byzantines have an interesting history, I'll give you that, can treat it as a special civ when Rome conquers 'Greece' and the Greeks break away due to 'issues'.

    The Migration periods happens at many points in European history, I can look at the Asian, Indian, Oceanic side as well, but will take a while depending on where you want to go with this.


    Looking at the Discussion and Ideas portion, the 'Dynamic trait system' that a gentleman posted might be of interest, page 247, post 4923.
    This could solve the 'must have A leader for A culture' while still giving it game flow. You can have the leaderheads make special appearances with better initial stats, in terms of revolutions, when the situation is ripe for revolutions.
     
  13. AIAndy

    AIAndy Deity

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2011
    Messages:
    3,414
    What about using the extended generic property system (nyi) that can have property sources and spreading of properties to cities, plots, units, ...?
     
  14. Acularius

    Acularius King

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2012
    Messages:
    794
    Location:
    Ontario, Canada
    Revised the idea, simplified it a lot more.
    Dynamic traits and Dynamic Civ names would synergize well with it I believe.

    To summarize, I'll explain the stages, which are essentially 3, because the Origin is more of a throwaway.
    If I refer to 'nation', that means I am referring to a set (or one) city played by the AI or human.
    Culture, is the accumulation of knowledge, myths and experiences passed on through the language of the people (just to set out a generic idea).
    Also, for examples, I'll explain it in terms of getting to 'Greek' culture.
    The stages as follow are,
    Origin (blank slate start) - Base Culture - Proto Culture - Culture.
    For Greek,
    Proto-Human - Indo European - Proto Greek - Greek

    To explain, Origin, is essentially the blank slate nothing has happened yet. Proto Human while not the most solid theory, makes a snug fit in terms of gameplay. 12000 BC start.
    Dynamic Civ name: People of Athens (essentially the city name)

    The Base of it all, basically the start of division between the language families and hopefully allows more plausible revolutions later on.
    The Base culture, can be based on the environment, resources and traits and needs to be spread, they generally start appearing in 7000BC, and most are around by the late 3000BC. Agressive and Nomad are prime examples of Indo European by the more popular Kurgen hypotheses.
    Urheimat hypotheses
    To spread the base culture
    Raiding: Not the successful capture of the 'city' but just by attacking you can spread the base culture. A succesful kill of a unit gives a higher chance, the unsuccesful chance has a lower one, but that means if you don't want that base culture make sure they don't raid your village. (For aggressive games or players)
    Conquest: The sure fire way of spreading your base culture is just by conquering that village. (For no city razing)
    Proximity: Not trade, but having the culture nearby means that it is likely to spread to you unless you have resources in the area not 'pleasant' to that base culture. For example, Indo European won't spread into cities with jungle or savanna in their vicinity, naturally that it. You need to be aggressive to penetrate those areas.
    Trade: If it gets late enough into the game, and no base culture has spread to that city, trade can spread it there so long as it is welcoming eough to the culture. Indo European like cows and horses, favours agressive and nomadic civs.

    This can be indicated by an invisible marker, essentially and autobuild structure in the city, notifying the presence of said 'Base' culture.
    Indo Europeans need to have 'Equine Domestication' to be founded, and horse in the vicinity. Higher chance near a river, wheat, and cow. Greater pull if there is sheep. Will immediately spawn with 'Caste' tech if it hasn't already been founded. High Spread chance. Unless by conquest or raiding, will not spread into cities with 'Jungle' or 'Savanna' in their vicinity.
    DCN: 'Kurgen Tribe'

    Next step leads us to Proto Culture, or more essentially a greater break down of the Base. Starting around 3000 BC timeline tech.
    You can treat it as a building that produces a 'culture resource', the building itself requires the Base culture, and resources in the city vicinity.
    You can only build 1 for your nation, but other nations can build them so long as they meet the requirement.
    For the 'Proto Greek' culture, you would need cow (Minoans), coast (Aegean), and silver (Athenai).
    This can allow you to build early culture related stuff, for the Minoans, and should restrict say people in England developing the Proto Greek culture.
    Only ever produces the one culture resource, that shouldn't be tradable as you wll need it later.
    [It would flourish in the Balkan area]
    DCM: 'Mycenean People' or 'Minoan People'

    Last, but not least, the Culture itself. Essentially the time span in between the divisions gets shorter and shorter, now this depends on tech (similar on how you get certain techs to get resources hook up, should be treated similarily.)
    'Corporation-esque' self founding mechanism so long as you have the requirements from the previous stages.
    Requires the 'proto-culture' resource and tech, higher chance of it founding with resources in the vicinity.

    -Greek culture, higher chance with copper and/or olives.
    - Build Greek related things, such as the Hoplites, Phalanxes and Companion Cavalry.
    - Build Greek culture resources (Koine, Greek Trade language) in order to trade and spread without needing to do so by conquest.
    Religion also helps, Hellenism should also, by definition should be tied to the Greek culture.
    (Look up Greek history, it is fun)


    General points to be made at this point,

    - Cultures and languages, can and do go extinct, 'Hatti' and the 'Scythians' are some good examples. Cities got 'razed' or the culture was not endorsed (buildings, civics, etc.) and disappears similar to the 'Decaying Religion' mechanic.

    - Trading cultures allows you to access that cultures building and unit roster, it may also spread into your territory so long as you hold said culture as a 'resource' as long as your area favours it. Higher chance if you have the prerequisite Base and Proto culture, but resources in the vicinity are just as good. You can also start building the 'culture resource' buildings in order to spread it further, at the cost of stability if ou aren't endorsing it.

    - By trading, later on, you have a chance to found a fusion culture and eventually replace the older ones. (A higher pull for 'younger' cultures). So if I was 'Greek' and I trade with the 'Romans' for their culture there is a high chance of me founding the Byzantine culture (if I have the Monarchy civic and horses in the vicinity)
    Fusion cultures, some are just buildings with the resource that require another, and some replace older cultures and continue to spread it (English for example, and colonial cultures)
    Coincidently, fear not, if you just own the Greek culture and the Roman culture, it has a chance to spread into those cities and replace the old one.
    I am Greek, conquered 'Roman cities', over time with tech and civics I founded the Byzantine culture and endorse it.

    - Younger cultures, should have a greater pull and seek to overwrite their predecessor culture. Eventually, the Italic culture (Roman) is replaced by the 'French, Italian, and Spanish' cultures. Therefor causing the Roman (Latin) culture to go extinct.
    This in turn can lead to stability issues and interesting civil wars.
    Religion and Nationalism will ruin your day, coincidently having Nationalism makes losing your culture harder and making easier to spread yours.

    An interesting scenario, the Byzantines founded the colonies in America, they don't enjoy the fact that they have no representation in homeland policies (in a nutshell, there are more reasons). A 'Colonial' revolutionary group begin their revolution to break away from the homeland, win and call themselves the 13 'Polis' of America.

    ProtoHuman-------IndoEuropean--ProtoGreek--Greek

    Greek------------------------------------Modern Greek
    -----------Byzantine (w Roman)----------| (Roman culture should dry up around now)

    Just putting this out there.

    Edit: There is room to make up colonial cultures that don't exist for situations that haven't happened historically.


    Edit 2: Bonuses, civics, and changing of 'dominant culture'.
    The Base cultures, should be quick and seemless, and not require anarchy, allowable with an early civic and restricted later on. Changes between the Cultures (since Protos are built upon the base), should require anarchy and a period of high instability.
    Bonuses, other than the associated heroes, buildings and units should work like religion in terms of diplomacy, such that the Italics will have better relations with themselves, followed by other Indo European nations, getting further apart as the Proto culture and base differ begin to differ. The Romans and Greeks will be on better terms (understanding of one anothers language) than say the Greeks and the Chinese (Which is apart of a different base group all together) This however will not stop conflicts between similar groupings. Just that trade will be a bit easier to do.

    Civics should relate to how you handle different cultures within (new group probably or associated with education) and around (foreign relations) your empire, some wishing to unite there bretheren back into the Empire as another layer on top of religious wars. Should effect the spread of your culture and other cultures, and eventually the availiability of buildings (teachers) to spread your culture.

    Bonuses can relate to the resources and terrain availiable, the Assyrians were known for early siege engineering so you can give that culture a building that gives bonuses to their units, (more city attack) at the cost of say stability or something along those lines.

    You can do quite a bit with this and it should be able to relate to the cultural units, buildings and heroes that are already in the game.

    Urheimat "Homeland"
     
  15. Praetyre

    Praetyre King

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2009
    Messages:
    941
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Auckland, New Zealand
    After further research regarding the peoples of the Old World, I have decided to put these as of yet unlisted and unimplemented revisions up for discussion;

    The Balangod (Ceylonese), Indus (Indians) and Zayandeh (Persians) should no longer be a Progenitor Civ, instead branching directly off the Proto Indo Europeans.

    The Polynesians and Pre Jomon (Japanese) should no longer be a Progenitor Civ, instead branching directly off the Austronesians (Indonesians).

    The Aborigines should be a Progenitor Civ (this one is very tentative, seeing as an argument could be made for them being Austronesian offshoots, and they are one of the most mysterious and isolated ethnic groups about).

    The Ethiopians and Malinese should be Progenitor Civs (tracing their ancestry is a nightmare, given these countries are populated by a diverse mixture of sub-Saharan African peoples).

    The English should require Nordic (Viking) and Sweboz (German) culture; once again, a tentative one, particularily as far as the possible inclusion of Celtic and French goes.
     
  16. Sgtslick

    Sgtslick Emperor

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2002
    Messages:
    1,685
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Melbourne
  17. Praetyre

    Praetyre King

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2009
    Messages:
    941
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Auckland, New Zealand
    As far as I know, Australasia is a purely geographical term with, at most, cultural references to the colonial populations of Australia and New Zealand. The Maori are considered a Polynesian people, while from what I have read of the Aborigines, they are an entirely distinct ethnic group who first migrated to Australia much, much, much earlier than the Polynesians migrated into the Pacific from their homeland of Taiwan (though, I'm actually kind of partial to the South American origin theory, which I think could in turn tie in with the pecularities about the Olmec people). Some theories I've heard rather intriguingly place the Aborigines as being Indian in origin, though not of the Indo-European branch.
     
  18. Sgtslick

    Sgtslick Emperor

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2002
    Messages:
    1,685
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Melbourne
    sry its your thread.. it just sounds funny is all.. call them w/e u like :mischief:
     
  19. Praetyre

    Praetyre King

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2009
    Messages:
    941
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Auckland, New Zealand
    Bumping since Acularius seems to be back on the prowl.
     
  20. TowerWizard

    TowerWizard Warlord

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2008
    Messages:
    257
    So, I must say that I did not read the entire thread, since I do not know too much about the history of culture. I love the idea, as much as i read about it, though. It have always seemed out of place for me to start the Americans in the stone age. Myself and Micael have just started discussing Cultural heritage as an alternative to traits. I don't think this would conflict with your idea? I mean, your idea develops the culture of the civs and determines unique units and buildings and such, while our has to do with replacing the trait mechanic. I think both these could coexist peacefully? In fact, since your idea seems to mean that your civ changes name and leader every new age, and in our idea civs would also change leaders and update their traits every new, I think these ideas could reinforce one another?
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page