They seem to have government types already available at the era. So I could see the "Republic, Oligarchy, Despotism" only available in the First Age, and then you have to choose from a new list of Governments in the Second Age, and another new list in the Third.
Speculating on (Historical) Civ Progression
- Thread starter thecrazyscot
- Start date
Yes, but governments must be provoked: uprisings, revolutions, wars, deaths. Not chosen arbitrarily by the player
Patine
Deity
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2011
- Messages
- 11,676
Again, it still seems you want to play another game other the Civ series.
Having Transition Costs is good, but if the player can't control it, then ...... there are plenty of well animated history lectures on You Tube.
ehecatzin
Emperor
- Joined
- Jun 29, 2007
- Messages
- 1,637
Events tied to government choosen could be really interesting, even more if they are tied to a civ flavour, ej: Roman Republic vs Empire. However it has to be about player choice, if I wanted to simulate revolutions and uprising I'd rather go play Victoria
And once again you show that you ignore, the most basic rules of history and simulation
Patine
Deity
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2011
- Messages
- 11,676
Not at all, and I never have, and nor have the others here who have criticized your points. The Civ series is not, truly, a historical simulation, and it's you who constantly ignores that.
Revolutions are very important because they are precisely those that lead to the change of eras, along with wars and economic crises , and a rule at the university man does not control can not totally control events
Of course, because civ is a game not a simulation. Things that are unfun bs aren't going to be a game just because they're realistic.
Patine
Deity
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2011
- Messages
- 11,676
But scripting them according to real world history, instead, would be lead to a very boring and predictable game.
revolutions simulate non historical events but fictitious historical events that lead to a Fictitious simulation of events but still it is a SIMULATION!
No it is a game, a simulation has 0 players, you only have input at the beginning.
A Game is based on player input. Now Revolutions that break out as a means for the player to change governments
ie You are Government A
a (Government B) Revolution has broken out do you
-Adopt the new government (Transition costs to Gov B)
-Suppress the Revolution (Temporary happiness costs and chance of additional Revolution.. but you stay at Gov A)
-Change the government to deal with the Revolution (Transition costs to Gov C)
That might be interesting as a way to change government
-
queenpea
Prince
Honestly I’m not even a fan of Hatshepsut unlocking Buganda…
I really hope that this isn’t final. But if it isn’t, why lead the marketing push with it featured so prominently?
Who said it was final? The original video showed Egypt -> Songhai -> Buganda
Songhai was later revealed to simply be a placeholder for Abbasids. So logically Buganda is also a placeholder for something in the Modern era. As for what that is, I don't know. Ottomans possibly since they controlled Egypt for a long time. Or it could be the Khedivate of Egypt?
Boris Gudenuf
Deity
So logically Buganda Might also be a placeholder . . .
The question then remains, why show off as a First Look a sequence that was only 1/3 true and the rest placeholders, and a sequence bound to be controversial and even off-putting.
Mind you, I hope you are correct and they have and have had a better sequence in mind for Egypt . . .
I think it’s still “true” just not the ‘“historical”=AI preferred path
Egypt unlocks both Songhai and Abbasids
but Abbasids are the Historical one
Both Songhai and Abbasids probably unlock Buganda
but Buganda is probably Songhais “historical” path, but Abbasids probably have a different “historical” path
Lord Lakely
Idea Fountain
Me neither, but if you see Hatshepsut as a ~Nile Oriented Leader~, then I can (barely) tolerate that she's a historic choice for non-Egyptian empires on the Nile without a clear leader (Aksum on the Blue Nile, Buganda on the White Nile). The amount of headcanoning and lateral thinking that requires of a player though... do you want me to think or do you want me to enjoy your game, Firaxis, it's ONE OF THE TWO!!
But yeah I think most of the current transitions paths are due to a shallow Civ pool, and you need to be able to connect the Civs in different eras. I wonder if some paths will retconned out of existance as more Civs are released.
I don‘t think that any unlocks that are in the base game will be removed through DLC, ever. It would make for a hard to overlook amount of possible combinations of dozens of DLC civs. It’s much simpler when DLCs only add and never eliminate choices.
Similar threads
