Speculating on (Historical) Civ Progression

[queenpea]

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 . . .

Thank you for reading my full comment before reacting

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 agree, I think these transitions will more closely mirror history once we have been served a couple years worth of DLC.

 

[Krikkit1]

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?

Where did they say Hatshepsut unlocked Buganda?
Abbasids unlocking Buganda I can see*. The only other Exploration Civ in Africa is Songhai, and I think they want multiple (other civ) unlocks.

*just not as a historical choice.

 

[Lord Lakely]

Nowhere ^_^

 

[queenpea]

Where did they say Hatshepsut unlocked Buganda?
Abbasids unlocking Buganda I can see*. The only other Exploration Civ in Africa is Songhai, and I think they want multiple (other civ) unlocks.

*just not as a historical choice.

If you go upwards a bit in the thread you will see what we are talking about. We are speculating about hypotheticals. It’s true that not much has been confirmed as of now.

For the record, I also don’t feel great about Songhai unlocking Buganda, but I am willing to wait and see and give the game a chance.

 

[guilarroyd]

I understand that some weird paths like Greece to Normans and Abbasids to Buganda will exist while the game has a limited number of Civs, but I wish they remove those options once the game has more Civs with more logical and accurate possibilities.

 

[queenpea]

I understand that some weird paths like Greece to Normans and Abbasids to Buganda will exist while the game has a limited number of Civs, but I wish they remove those options once the game has more Civs with more logical and accurate possibilities.

No doubt, when they add more accurate "historical path" civilizations to the game, and if historical paths are not unlimited, then these will be revised as we add more civilizations to the game.

 

[Siptah]

No doubt, when they add more accurate "historical path" civilizations to the game, and if historical paths are not unlimited, then these will be revised as we add more civilizations to the game.

As I said above, I have a lot of doubt that they will remove paths.

It may be that once they add Byzantium, AI Rome may randomly choose one of Spain, Normans, or Byzantium as historical paths each game. But I doubt they would ever say: „hey, now that we have Byzantium, let’s drop Spain from the historical choices.“

Also think of multiplayer: You are in a Rome game, and want to switch to Spain, but your host has the Byzantium DLC, so you are not allowed to do what you planned and did in single player many times. That doesn‘t sound appealing, no?

 

[Josephias]

As I said above, I have a lot of doubt that they will remove paths.

I think also it is not necessary to remove paths, but they can assign different priorities or possibilities to existing ones.

So, let’s say Egipt Choice order is Abbasids, then Songhai if abbasids not available. Or a Chance rate of 75% Abbasids (value 3) and 25% Shongai.

—

Say they now introduce Fatimids as an alternate choice in exploration age. Priorities may be rearranged as Fatimids > Abbasids > Shongai, and now you need two civilizations need to fail before getting Songhai. Or, if we go for a more fexible probability system, Fatimids may enter with a weight of 4, making potential evolution 50% Fatimids (4/8), 37,5% Abbasids (3/8) and only 12,5% Songhai (1/8)

In any of both cases, AI probability of reaching “regional” paths starts becomingmuch smaller, virtually being removed (without actually removing it)

 

[Siptah]

I think also it is not necessary to remove paths, but they can assign different priorities or possibilities to existing ones.

So, let’s say Egipt Choice order is Abbasids, then Songhai if abbasids not available. Or a Chance rate of 75% Abbasids (value 3) and 25% Shongai.

—

Say they now introduce Fatimids as an alternate choice in exploration age. Priorities may be rearranged as Fatimids > Abbasids > Shongai, and now you need two civilizations need to fail before getting Songhai. Or, if we go for a more fexible probability system, Fatimids may enter with a weight of 4, making potential evolution 50% Fatimids (4/8), 37,5% Abbasids (3/8) and only 12,5% Songhai (1/8)

In any of both cases, AI probability of reaching “regional” paths starts becomingmuch smaller, virtually being removed (without actually removing it)

yep, the weighting system you describe is pretty much what I hope for in general and even the base game. It would be quite boring if the AI would be too predictable in their choices.

A meaningful weighting would help, yet there still would be many combinations possible with the upcoming ~ 60 DLC civs of which any player might have a random combination between 0 and full 60. That’s not a quick task to assign weightings to in all permutations.

 

[queenpea]

Right, that's why I said "if historical paths are not unlimited".

What we are looking at currently is a lot of DLC in the pipeline which will be marketed in a way to fill in the "historical path" issues we will be encountering at launch. Let's assume the game launches without Byzantium, and then we receive Byzantium in a future DLC. I would assume that Byzantium would replace Normans as the logical path for the Romans.

Valuing simplicity, the devs might choose to reorganize (and reduce) historical paths as they introduce DLC. Using the Romans as an example again, if you accept the Romans --> Normans path, then the Romans could logically lead to almost all Western European civs. From a gameplay perspective, that UI screen at the Age change is just going to be a complete mess.

As for multiplayer, it sounds like a lot of decisions on that end are not complete and have not been finalized. I'm not an expert on multiplayer though. How does Civ VI work currently if one player has Gathering Storm, and another has only base game?

 

[Siptah]

Right, that's why I said "if historical paths are not unlimited".

What we are looking at currently is a lot of DLC in the pipeline which will be marketed in a way to fill in the "historical path" issues we will be encountering at launch. Let's assume the game launches without Byzantium, and then we receive Byzantium in a future DLC. I would assume that Byzantium would replace Normans as the logical path for the Romans.

Valuing simplicity, the devs might choose to reorganize (and reduce) historical paths as they introduce DLC. Using the Romans as an example again, if you accept the Romans --> Normans path, then the Romans could logically lead to almost all Western European civs. From a gameplay perspective, that UI screen at the Age change is just going to be a complete mess.

As for multiplayer, it sounds like a lot of decisions on that end are not complete and have not been finalized. I'm not an expert on multiplayer though. How does Civ VI work currently if one player has Gathering Storm, and another has only base game?

Civ is very restrictive in that regard. Everybody needs the expansion, otherwise you cannot play with the respective civs and rules. It‘s more lenient with non-Expansion leaders, but I might that part remember wrong.

The Romans *can* lead logically to (almost) all Western European civs. And they should (and to some non-Europeans like Ottomans, Abbasids, Tunis). Otherwise „historical choice“ is a meaningless description of „we randomly decided on these two.“

The AI shouldn‘t care if a screen looks messy, and I can see the player having 10+ choices due to gameplay unlocks once we have more civs anyway. They might also update that screen at some point. It‘s rather neat in HK with 15 choices per era and already looks messy in base game civ VII with less.

 

[uppi]

As I said above, I have a lot of doubt that they will remove paths.

It may be that once they add Byzantium, AI Rome may randomly choose one of Spain, Normans, or Byzantium as historical paths each game. But I doubt they would ever say: „hey, now that we have Byzantium, let’s drop Spain from the historical choices.“

Also think of multiplayer: You are in a Rome game, and want to switch to Spain, but your host has the Byzantium DLC, so you are not allowed to do what you planned and did in single player many times. That doesn‘t sound appealing, no?

I agree that removing links in a DLC would create chaos, but they could (and probably should) do so with an expansion that has enough Civs for a proper and coherent rebalane.

I fear that the inevitable load of Civs added by DLC will make civ-switching worse (from a gameplay point of view), because there are too many options (Rome into 20 exploration Civs??)

 

[queenpea]

The Romans *can* lead logically to (almost) all Western European civs. And they should (and to some non-Europeans like Ottomans, Abbasids, Tunis). Otherwise „historical choice“ is a meaningless description of „we randomly decided on these two.“

I agree, but the civ switching is purely a game mechanic, just like the ages, so it's all up to the devs at this point obviously.

Between historical paths, leader unlocks, and game play unlocks (such as three horses equals Mongolia), we are already looking at a lot of player choice.

The AI shouldn‘t care if a screen looks messy, and I can see the player having 10+ choices due to gameplay unlocks once we have more civs anyway. They might also update that screen at some point. It‘s rather neat in HK with 15 choices per era and already looks messy in base game civ VII with less.

I meant just for the player, not the UI. As a player, I think if you have more than three "historical path" choices, it may get out of hand. I think it might pose balance challenges as well, if a civ like the Romans automatically unlocks limitless civs in your second age while not all civs will be as versatile. Not sure how they will handle all of this. I am sure it's all being carefully considered.

 

[Siptah]

With free to choose leaders and multiple civs, balance will always be out of the window. They can try to balance civs per era and can try to make all leaders similarly good, but they will never be able to balance all combinations. They might have a look at the most OP combinations at some point, but that‘s it. I mean, look at civ VI, there's hardly a balance after that many years and I would say the job was much easier for that game. Having the same unlocks per civ might make it look more balanced on paper, but I'm not sure how much it actually affects the balance of the game (assuming that most later era civs have a gameplay unlock - if they don't you have a point).

I‘m still having hope for a „deactivate historical unlocks for human players" button or mod (that gives you one single historical choice in case you fail to unlock any others).

 

[queenpea]

With free to choose leaders and multiple civs, balance will always be out of the window. They can try to balance civs per era and can try to make all leaders similarly good, but they will never be able to balance all combinations. They might have a look at the most OP combinations at some point, but that‘s it. I mean, look at civ VI, there's hardly a balance after that many years and I would say the job was much easier for that game. Having the same unlocks per civ might make it look more balanced on paper, but I'm not sure how much it actually affects the balance of the game (assuming that most later era civs have a gameplay unlock - if they don't you have a point).

I‘m still having hope for a „deactivate historical unlocks for human players" button or mod (that gives you one single historical choice in case you fail to unlock any others).

I would agree with you, except that the devs has called out balance again and again for the introduction of the Ages mechanic.

 

[Siptah]

i can see that argument by the devs: having no more late game and early game civs to balance alongside each other, but all civ bonuses happen at the same time (full era) helps to balance the civs by era immensely. Also, having more uniques leaves more room for subtle changes (take one gold from that building, give one CS to that unique unit, etc.). So these are definitely an upside for potential game balance!

On the other hand, as I said, combinations make things wild. If we assume 15 leaders (just factoring in their fixed individual bonuses as one set) * 15 antiquity civs (same approach) that's already 225 possible combinations to balance. Now, moving on to exploration age, you have 15 more (1 per civ) possibilities for each of these, giving 3'375 different sets of exploration era bonuses (as you keep unique buildings and traditions). In the modern age, there are 50'625 different sets of bonuses possible. I'm pretty sure we'll see great things! Can't wait for Spiffing Brit's videos.

 

[queenpea]

On the other hand, as I said, combinations make things wild. If we assume 15 leaders (just factoring in their fixed individual bonuses as one set) * 15 antiquity civs (same approach) that's already 225 possible combinations to balance. Now, moving on to exploration age, you have 15 more (1 per civ) possibilities for each of these, giving 3'375 different sets of exploration era bonuses. In the modern age, there are 50'625 different sets of bonuses possible. I'm pretty sure we'll see great things! Can't wait for Spiffing Brit's videos.

Supposedly he already broke the Antiquity Age playing as Egypt during the play test...

 

[Krikkit1]

I don't see "Historical paths" being eliminated....instead I see them becoming "Regional paths"... So
Aksum->Songhai is "Historical" right now ie prioritized by AI (hopefully AI prioritizing "Historical" is a setting we can turn off for more interest)
if there is a DLC "Amhara" civ then
Aksum->Amhara will probably be the "Historical" path
but Aksum will probably still unlock Songhai and Abbasids

After a number of DLC, I think most of the base civs will have a large number of regional unlocks, but still only a few "historical" unlocks (the ones the AI prioritize if unless that option is switched off)