Rename Civ Eras- they're too Eurocentric!

[Ribannah]

Rome maybe not, but Chinese silk went everywhere, and so did e.g. Dutch colonial spices.
But essential is that for this reasoning, too, you are using western values (technology and products). If you make them dominant then the west has indeed been somewhat dominant for a while, and time does seem to fly.
If you look at e.g. social values, then you cannot say the same. And a thousand years from now the developments of these past few centuries will look just as slow as the Middle Ages look to us. It's always faster if you're living them.

 

[punkbass2000]

Well, the increase of technology has decreased the amount of time for change to occur. The rise and fall of empires these days is far more rapid than, say, Ancient Egyptian times. Weapons are more powerful, communication is better, etc. So a simple year judgement really doesn't measure things quite correctly.

Precisely! It's the number of turns! America has played 200 turns as world leader, while Egypt piddled away plenty of time before 4000BC, and only played maybe 100 turns as dominant force.

Now then. The fact that the West has been so dominant in the last few centuries which have seen rapid technological advancement is quite a feat. (For example) American culture, influence, products, weapons, etc. are seen all across the entire world despite there being numerous sources for all of these these days which most people have access to. Did the Roman Empire ever reach this level? Mongolia? Their regional power was quite impressive but they never saw such complete global dominance that the West holds today and the past centuries.

Seriously now, if you're going to give consideration for 'year length', you certainly have to give consideration for this point too. Rome controlled the known world, as did Mongolia. Relatively, that's a lot more than America.

 

[Jon Shafer]

Rome maybe not, but Chinese silk went everywhere, and so did e.g. Dutch colonial spices.
But essential is that for this reasoning, too, you are using western values (technology and products). If you make them dominant then the west has indeed been somewhat dominant for a while, and time does seem to fly.
If you look at e.g. social values, then you cannot say the same. And a thousand years from now the developments of these past few centuries will look just as slow as the Middle Ages look to us. It's always faster if you're living them.

The Chinese were quite powerful for a lengthy period of time, yes. It's a shame that more about them hasn't been included in Civ so far. Chinese paper, compasses, gunpowder, etc. would have been an improvement over the current system, I would agree. That having been said, the strength of the Chinese has waned quite a bit since the rise of the west from "Medieval" times and onwards, which is mainly what I'm talking about.

And the Dutch were part of the West.

I would mainly say that "dominance" would be measured by pure strength (for example, what Mongolia had) as well as standard of living (which they and their conquered peoples certainly did not have). For the past 5 centuries or so (2/4 Civ ages) it's been the West which has been the leader in both areas.

Precisely! It's the number of turns! America has played 200 turns as world leader, while Egypt piddled away plenty of time before 4000BC, and only played maybe 100 turns as dominant force.

From a Civ perspective, yes, that's my point.

Seriously now, if you're going to give consideration for 'year length', you certainly have to give consideration for this point too. Rome controlled the known world, as did Mongolia. Relatively, that's a lot more than America.

As I explained earlier, I would argue that total dominance is both power and standard of living. Rome was basically "the West" back then (and their culture and technology evolved into what became Europe), so I don't really think it's appropriate to cite them in an argument AGAINST whether the focus of progress should be the West. The Mongols' subjects weren't exactly happy campers. Merv anyone?

 

[Ribannah]

I would mainly say that "dominance" would be measured by pure strength as well as standard of living.

Yes, and that determines your choice of ages.
That's exactly the point.
If you measure it differently, you define era's differently.

For the past 5 centuries or so (2/4 Civ ages)

Ah, five. Yes, that would include the Dutch.
But from a different perspective, you wouldn't squeeze 2 ages into a mere 5 centuries.

it's been the West which has been the leader in both areas.

But not in other areas!

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

In some ways, the arguments being posted here are part and parcel of why I support the idea of 'situational' techs!
For instance, if you find a large quantity of saltpeter, then your chances of learning about gunpowder before everyone else will increase dramatically-even more so if you are a militaristic civ that places lots of its research budget into military technologies!!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[sir_schwick]

Actually the only thing Europe really exceded in 500 years ago was weapons. Sure, the Renaissance was really gaining speed, but they were barely more advanced culturally and scientifically then Rome had been. If you want to talk about cultural/scientific advancment look at meso-america. They had way better astronomical maps, road systems, calendars, administrative systems, etc. The only thing they did not have were gunpowder weapons and the metallurgy knowledge to make combat grade steel. Had Montezuma killed Cortez instead of giving him gold, history could have been a lot different. I know that disease was also a major bane of the Meso-Americans, but that could have been overcome.

 

[dh_epic]

Here we are trying to discuss why the west has been more successful, and all the arguments focus on domination and cultural transmission. Funny, these are the measures of success in Civ. This is what I mean about the subtle Eurocentricism in the game, that naturally favor democratization, expansionism, and self-interest.

There is no reward for stability. There is no reward for collective prosperity -- success is measured by the best and brightest within a nation, but ignores how crappy things can be for the remaining masses.

Millenia without an empire crumbling. That's a feat in real life, but no feat at all in Civ. Stability is taken for granted. Expansion is rewarded, but stability is expected. Pretty American way of looking at the world. Forget an international audience, this makes the game pretty boring, in my books.

And besides, no matter what you do, having a "one size fits all" approach to a game that's not only about history, but lets you manipulate and change history... that loses pretty much everything that's cool about history in the first place.

 

[bob rulz]

Well, here's my age lists (8 ages)

Prehistoric Age
Classical Age
Dark Age
Medieval Age
Enlightenment Age
Imperial Age
Industrial Age
Information Age

Maybe a bit eurocentric, but it works for me.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Personally, I want ages retained, but DO want the ability to add, delete and name the ages-for both standard games and scenarios!!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[Oni]

Here we are trying to discuss why the west has been more successful, and all the arguments focus on domination and cultural transmission. Funny, these are the measures of success in Civ. This is what I mean about the subtle Eurocentricism in the game, that naturally favor democratization, expansionism, and self-interest.

There is no reward for stability. There is no reward for collective prosperity -- success is measured by the best and brightest within a nation, but ignores how crappy things can be for the remaining masses.

Millenia without an empire crumbling. That's a feat in real life, but no feat at all in Civ. Stability is taken for granted. Expansion is rewarded, but stability is expected. Pretty American way of looking at the world. Forget an international audience, this makes the game pretty boring, in my books.

And besides, no matter what you do, having a "one size fits all" approach to a game that's not only about history, but lets you manipulate and change history... that loses pretty much everything that's cool about history in the first place.

Thats very well said but I think that would drastically change the game play. The game nees more work on uprisings and such. It shouldn't just be something that is entirely annoying. It could be something you want in a way (simular to changing government but yet completely different). There should be different aspects of rebelion and different quelling of each. Rather than just plopping some military and increasing luxary tax. THings should be seperated.... But yet kept simple. For the most part it could run simular to now but allow capability of defining resistance quelling and such.

And government shouldn't be just a click of a button and saying lets be a monarchy now... Different measures should be taken... And to keep it simple a player should be able to tell his advisor he wishes for a rebelion to switch to a monarchy. Then the process begins rather then an imediate switch to anarchy and then monarchy.

But the skilled player could refine the process. Start by executing the Temple priests or something... Hire some propoganists... Imprison the lead generals.. Whatever it takes and depending on the current government and type to switch to.

And there should be different riotors and revolutionists... So sometimes if you aren't watching closely your government just might flip without your desire to have it flip. That would be pretty cool

But as I said, complicated. So I doubt we would see something like this until like Civ8 or something
But we can hope and push good simple ideas out to get it implimented

 

[sir_schwick]

I do have ways to keep expansion from being limitless and make government make more sense.

On Government:
Bring back social engineering from SMAC. You shoul be able to control more than your political system. Also, political and economic systems should not be tied to each other. I'll first start with the categories for social engineering.

Political - this is how your government is organized
Economic - this is how much your government interferes with the economy
Values - this is what your society values the most
Family Structure - this is how your families in general are structured

Here are the options wiht each, some of them evolving over time:
Political:
Oligarchical - complete control by one or a group, usually violent rise to power
Monarchial - you pass on yoru reign to your children
Republic - free elections
Police State - you rule through undying devotion to the state and secret police
Socialism - I never studied Marx's works, so I can't comment here.

Economic:
Free Market - government has no interference
Regulated - government has a national bank(US System) and some regulation
Planned - government controls most major industries and infrastructure
Socialism - govnerment owns most of the commerce and industry

Values:
Military - your peopel value the warrior and the warrior legend
Knowledge - your people value the intellectual and the academician and the explorer
Wealth - yoru people value money and the merchant class
Industrious - your people value the worker, great cities, and industry
Religion - your people value religion above all else
Entertainment - your people like to laugh and play and make art and culture

Family Structure:
Communal - people from the whole community live together sort of like a village
Extended - most of the extended family lives together at adulthood
Nuclear - only the nuclear family usually lives together at adulthood
Independent - kids live with their parents, but are pretty much their own entities once they are out in the world

You may notice a few things. One, there is no democracy. Almost all these forms will evolve somewhat with technology, so I just put down the basic ocncept. I have not thought out how each would effect your civ. Personally I would like to see the faction characteristics brought back from SMAC, only more suited for Earth.

2) There are a couple ways to solve the issues of migration and limiteless expansion. Here are some facts to consider that may change how this works:
First, people usually want to stay in an established, well-fed community as long as it is not overpopulated. Knowing that, cities should automatically produce settlers after hitting a certain population. The limit would increase with time and infrastructure you build. Also, if cities were connected by roads this migration would occur naturally. Development and infrastructural base would also determine how much administration you could do without trouble, this way you can't grow too large unless you develop it right. Of course you would need options to develop tribute states and such, as the AI doesnt' recognize when you have the power.

 

[dh_epic]

I think there are two keys to adding domestic issues in a good way, aside from avoiding the obvious pitfalls of micromanagement and vague "lack of fun".

One is rewarding people for handling domestic issues well. If it feels like "Civ 3 + Punishment" the player will hate it. But if there are rewards for not just maintaining the status quo but excelling, then all of the sudden you could have people who ignore a military strategy to become a domestic powerhouse. Tie culture into being domestic pride and peace, rather than war and expansion. Make it possible to have the world's largest economy with only 5 cities. In another thread, I talked about creating a "utopian victory" or "domestic victory" for just having a really high quality of life. All of the sudden adding domestic issues doesn't feel like another thing to weigh you down, but something else you can manipulate to lift you up.

Two is empowering rival nations. If domestic issues feel like you're surrendering control to the PC, then you'll feel pretty pissed off. But if domestic issues feel like something that players surrender to other players, then you feel empowered even when someone else messes with you. "Yeah he stimulated the revolt and my nation spun out of control... but I can do the exact same thing to him, if I get the chance."

 

[sir_schwick]

The big reason I suggested bringing back SE is because the current government choices are very limited. I do agree with that domestic issues should be handled in a fun, strategic way, not micromanagement.

 

[kbedwards]

I personally think the ruler (you the player) should not be able to see ALL the techs available in the future. I know this is done for playability, but for accuracy, none of the rulers knew that if they spent resources on MATHEMATICS for instance, that they would eventually be able to build catapults, or whatever advances and other techs that discovering mathematics eventually lead to.

Problem is from a player view, after a few games, you would learn the tech tree...so it would kill most of the fun of "discovery".

Several years ago for instance (talking real life here), the US was putting research money into GENETICS, but we didn't (still don't) know exactly what would come of that, and more importantly, what new reseach branches it will open up after we research it for years.

 

[socralynnek]

For me, playability is much more important than accuracy...
It's a strategy game, and so you should be able to plan.
But I could live with something like blind research, if it's done in a way that's still fun and adds strategic options instead of decreasing them.

 

[sir_schwick]

I do see what you mean about playability, but beelining research strategies do not seem to reward fluid decision making playing. The SMAC Blind Research could be directed in roughtly right direction, but it gave players the chance to focus on what was their priority, not a specific module or improvement.

 

[dh_epic]

There are a couple key differences between Civ and reality that are unreconcilable. For example, in reality, people aren't playing to win, but playing to survive and prosper. If you imposed a distinct time limit and everyone cared about some kind of measurable score, the world would be a pretty weird place.

A related problem IS the whole "foresee the future" problem. Not only do players have the ability to see / memorize the evolution of technology, but they have the a priori knowledge of history, competition, expansion, the map size... You KNOW that in the 20th century, land is gonna run out, so you expand as much as possible in ancient times. Of course, the Meso-American and Native American peoples didn't know or care too much about this.

I'm not really saying that's a problem that you need to solve. What's important is that there's a level playing field, and everyone can make an impact and change the direction of history... that you can see the world in 1940 and think "whoa, imagine things turned out this way". You don't get that feeling in Civ (yet).

 

[Jon Shafer]

The whole issue of "stability" is practically moot - I think that's delving a bit from Civ into EU territory. While I'm a big fan of complex systems (I find them entertaining ), the majority does not. It would be better (from a Civ perspective) to find a system that was more simple).

 

[dh_epic]

Still, it's a lot of subtleties in the game. There are dozens of ways that it is very eurocentric and hence doesn't allow for variety in gameplay, and only a handful of ways it tries to be neutral (like having Sun Tzu's the Art of War... is that it?)

For example, it's not the free market that brings economic prosperity in Civ... but it's freedom itself. There's a lot of asian countries with authoritarian governments starting to prove that theory wrong, and has economists very nervous.

If Civ reflected this, it would be a very very different game. It would not only have to allow for a government of this sort (one who is culturally and socially conservative, a police state, yet allows many corporate freedoms) ... but revamp democracy as well to reflect its real benefits over this kind of rule.

 

[Jon Shafer]

Yeah, but the Civ design team is working based off of history, they're not political or economic theorists.