Splitting of Civilizations

[civilizationfanatic2000]

There’s plenty that’s permanent, though. All of your religious beliefs, your pantheon, the wonders you pick, the Great People you earn.

And the temporary bonuses give flexibility. Making them permanent seems like it’d completely defeat the purpose of that and then cause balance issues, because you basically don’t need to make important choices if you can switch something in, make it permanent, and go onto the next thing.

Why does all of this not count as “evolving” your civ? Does it need to be plastered on the screen with a new UI box for it to count?

Because every Civ grows the same way with minor differences pre-determined at the start of the game. I feel very strongly that aside from the Three Traits and an environmental bias, there should not be any further built-in features for a civilization. Most changes should come from the environment- biome, climate, animals, and more- as well as political changes. A game where you start as what would be a Barbarian faction in most games, then grow to become one of the strongest economies in your region is a different game from one where your state is conquered but your civilization lives for millennia after. This isn't possible in Civ. Which is a shame. Because it is fun.

Also the permanent changes that are there don't change things enough. Especially religion.

At any rate, I think excessive customization is a net negative, and I don’t want my faction to continue to evolve with a novel’s worth of accumulated abilities. It’s explicitly what lead to games feeling “samey” and boring because in essence you’re able to make optimal choices nonstop.

This is one of those things where I truly believe that the audience doesn’t really understand what it’s asking for.

Just make the game hard to optimize.

 

[Naeshar]

There’s plenty that’s permanent, though. All of your religious beliefs, your pantheon, the wonders you pick, the Great People you earn.

Why does all of this not count as “evolving” your civ? Does it need to be plastered on the screen with a new UI box for it to count?

Nothing of this is permanent though, as well as not linked to your Civilization. Religion is not exclusive to your civilization and can be spread or eradicated, voiding the identity. Wonders can be captured, GPs are temporary and have tiny bonuses. Nothing you can anchor or base your civilization off of. The pantheon is closest. It cannot be changed, but offers little gameplay bonuses and you decide based on your location or focus. Sometimes it is big, like River Goddess, other times its small and conditional like God of War, sometimes it is huge one-time boost, like the free settler one. Afterwards, it is hidden from sight and you never interact with it again.

And the temporary bonuses give flexibility. Making them permanent seems like it’d completely defeat the purpose of that and then cause balance issues, because you basically don’t need to make important choices if you can switch something in, make it permanent, and go onto the next thing.

I am all for flexibility and switch-in switch-out options. They offer moment to moment gameplay and "busywork". Not the feeling of building towards a particular civilization identity which are permanent and recognizable traits. I am not thinking of our switching our builder cards to be replaced by permanent bonus charges, as this is available to each player independently from each other. Building the Pyramids does it, but is bound to the wonder, again, and doesnt feel like a civ perk (at least since Liang entered the game). Something like +50% production towards archers as Nubia felt very pushed when it was released as out-of-the-box bonus. If this was obtainable as a unique perk via building 5 archer units as first in the world (not by pressing a button like Pantheons), this would build your identity as Archer civilization, locking you out of cavalry and siege and builder options.

At any rate, I think excessive customization is a net negative, and I don’t want my faction to continue to evolve with a novel’s worth of accumulated abilities. It’s explicitly what lead to games feeling “samey” and boring because in essence you’re able to make optimal choices nonstop.

This is one of those things where I truly believe that the audience doesn’t really understand what it’s asking for.

Excessive customization sure is a negative. Heck you could even add the Archer civilization description in the overview in diplo screen where the perks are. Having more than 7 such traits will be excessive and defeating the purpose of having powerful distinctive perks.
Thats why there is no place where your modifiers are listed. There would be hundreds by the end game, with what the CS, GPP, policies, diplo and many other systems provide. Compare with EU4 where you can check the modifiers on country, state, province, army level...

And very explicitly I am against any kind of optimizing these added perks and their balance. Aztec luxury bonus is comparable with Mongol cavalry and trade bonuses, but both are nuanced and not flat.

 

[pokiehl]

Something like +50% production towards archers as Nubia felt very pushed when it was released as out-of-the-box bonus. If this was obtainable as a unique perk via building 5 archer units as first in the world (not by pressing a button like Pantheons), this would build your identity as Archer civilization, locking you out of cavalry and siege and builder options.

This sort of thing feels decidedly gamey, arbitrary, and ahistorical to me.

I really don’t want the series to go in this direction.

 

[Leucarum]

In between temporary and permanent are various degrees of stickiness. I don't think Civ6 makes enough use of traits which, while temporary, require time/other resources to shift. Done right you can keep the flexibility of temporary traits, while making it more of a strategic decision as to when/whether it's worth it?

Part of me wonders if they intended for policy cards to feel stickier than they are, given you only switch them for free with a civic, but those are researched so fast by competent players that it's basically "swap cards whenever"

 

[Leyrann]

In between temporary and permanent are various degrees of stickiness. I don't think Civ6 makes enough use of traits which, while temporary, require time/other resources to shift. Done right you can keep the flexibility of temporary traits, while making it more of a strategic decision as to when/whether it's worth it?

Part of me wonders if they intended for policy cards to feel stickier than they are, given you only switch them for free with a civic, but those are researched so fast by competent players that it's basically "swap cards whenever"

We've got what, 60 civics, right? In 500 turns, that means <10 turns even at intended pacing. That's not very sticky.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I am all for flexibility and switch-in switch-out options. They offer moment to moment gameplay and "busywork". Not the feeling of building towards a particular civilization identity which are permanent and recognizable traits. I am not thinking of our switching our builder cards to be replaced by permanent bonus charges, as this is available to each player independently from each other. Building the Pyramids does it, but is bound to the wonder, again, and doesnt feel like a civ perk (at least since Liang entered the game). Something like +50% production towards archers as Nubia felt very pushed when it was released as out-of-the-box bonus. If this was obtainable as a unique perk via building 5 archer units as first in the world (not by pressing a button like Pantheons), this would build your identity as Archer civilization, locking you out of cavalry and siege and builder options.

I understand where you are coming from but sometimes people pick the civilization to play based off of what they want. If you want to play as an Archer civilization, why not just pick Nubia, who were known for their skilled archers?
I'm not about to pick the Māori if I have to build 5 archers first just to get that perk, and I certainly wouldn't pick Nubia if I wanted to be an early seafaring civ.

 

[moondog385]

I assume moondog means mix and match Uniques, and leader and civ qualities.

I'm surprised they haven't given that as an option; it must be the case that there's a mod that allows that for each game, no?

In Civ V (which is the game I know) maybe Solidarity, Chu-ko-nu, Ikanda or something along those lines.

I meant something like creating your own unique abilities and leaders based on a selection of in-game values. So you could make things like Rohan, Gondor, etc. without relying on mods. Just a fun little side thing. Not taking the preexisting uniques and making some kind of mashup. @pokiehl

 

[Leucarum]

We've got what, 60 civics, right? In 500 turns, that means <10 turns even at intended pacing. That's not very sticky.

Yeah, I was saying I thought maybe that's what they were trying for rather than 'they did a good job'

 

[UWHabs]

This sort of thing feels decidedly gamey, arbitrary, and ahistorical to me.

I really don’t want the series to go in this direction.

Sometimes I would like more bonuses you can unlock. Like if you're playing as Babylon or Egypt, it feels like something which can unlock extra bonuses for farming make sense. I wouldn't mind seeing England get a bonus to building more pasturelands. But at the same time, there's a limit for how much you should be able to do that, and Babylon and Egypt already get their specific civ bonuses for that. England leaning towards livestock for their food probably isn't as "intrinsic" to England.

Of course, I do think a game mode which gives a little more randomness and variety might be a fun mode to try sometime. I've always wondered what a civ game where, for example, each civ's uniques and abilities could somehow be unlocked in the game. So yeah like when you reach archery you can run the "Ta-Seti Project" and if you complete it first your civ ability becomes that for the rest of the game. But that would be a game mode, because sometimes it can be fun to play England with a Ball Court, archer bonus, and Roman Legions as your unique abilities. But I wouldn't want that as the default.

 

[Krajzen]

Those who split India: would you split it into empires or cultures?

This is a problem, because it would feel weird for both of those things to be intermixed. Other civs are generally based on cultures not polities, with very few exceptions ("Ottomans", "Gran Colombia"). On the other hand dividing India into modern era ethnolinguistic groups also seems to be awkward.

So should we have like Gupta, Chola, Mughals, Maratha empires or like Hindi, Tamil, Bengali, Marathi people?

 

[pokiehl]

Other civs are generally based on cultures not polities, with very few exceptions ("Ottomans", "Gran Colombia").

I’m not sure I agree with the premise. I think for most civs there is overlap, but I can’t think of a single truly “ethnic group” civ that doesn’t correspond to some sort of political grouping. Maybe the Scythians as they are. That’s really it.

 

[civilizationfanatic2000]

Those who split India: would you split it into empires or cultures?

This is a problem, because it would feel weird for both of those things to be intermixed. Other civs are generally based on cultures not polities, with very few exceptions ("Ottomans", "Gran Colombia"). On the other hand dividing India into modern era ethnolinguistic groups also seems to be awkward.

So should we have like Gupta, Chola, Mughals, Maratha empires or like Hindi, Tamil, Bengali, Marathi people?

I don't know!

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

I’m not sure I agree with the premise. I think for most civs there is overlap, but I can’t think of a single truly “ethnic group” civ that doesn’t correspond to some sort of political grouping. Maybe the Scythians as they are. That’s really it.

Greeks. In no Civ game has there been a Greek polity represented that also represented all the Greek people. The Leaders in Civ VI, for example, represent only 2 out of many city states, a tiny fraction of the Greek people as a whole.

Of course, the counter-argument is that until modern times (post 1829) there has never been any political entity that included the majority of the Greek people, so to include them at all in the game requires modifying any "ethnic group = political group" rule.

The other argument is that it really doesn't matter. The game uses 'real' political leaders, cultural/charismatic leaders, and legendary or near-legendary leaders, and has more than once (as in the Greek case, but also Ludwig of 'Germany' and, as posted, Tomyris of 'Scythia') used Leaders that represent only a fraction of the total ethnic group represented.

And if, as in the new ARA game, gamers accept Sappho as a Leader of Greece, then nothing in Civ concerning representation of polities, ethnicities or Leaders is worth arguing about . . .

 

[BackseatTyrant]

Germans: Holy Roman Empire, Germany Proper, Prussians, Saxons, Bavarians, etc.
French: French proper, Franks, Burgundians, Occitans, etc.
India: India Proper, Mauryans, Mughals, Dravidians, etc
Chinese: Han, Tang, Song, Ming, etc.
Celts: Gauls, Bretons, Irish, Welsh, Scots, etc
English: Mercia, England, Great Britain, etc.
Persians: Iran proper, Achaemenids, Sassanians, Parthians, Safavids, etc.
Arabians: Abbasids, Ayyubids, Yemeni, Omani, etc.
Turks: Seljuks, Ottomans, Türkiye, (Timurids?), etc.
Greeks: Athenians, Spartans, Macedonians, Myceneans, etc.
Egyptians: Egypt Proper, Hyksos, Ptolemies.
Algonquians: Iroquois, Cree
Indonesia: Malaya, Majapahit, Sundanese, etc.
Bantus: Zulu, Xhosa, Zimbabweans, etc.
Nigerians: Yoruba, Beninese, Hausa, etc.

I've talked about this elsewhere, but I much rather see these blob civs be split into their constituent ethnicities, rather than the ruling dynasties. So for example, instead of saying "Persia gets split into Achaemenids, Sassanians and Safavids" we should really be saying "Iran gets split into Persia, Elam, Media, Parthia, Scythia, Tabaristan and Kurdistan"; less emphasis on high culture and names of empires, more emphasis on low culture and names of people

 

[Leucarum]

I've talked about this elsewhere, but I much rather see these blob civs be split into their constituent ethnicities, rather than the ruling dynasties. So for example, instead of saying "Persia gets split into Achaemenids, Sassanians and Safavids" we should really be saying "Iran gets split into Persia, Elam, Media, Parthia, Scythia, Tabaristan and Kurdistan"; less emphasis on high culture and names of empires, more emphasis on low culture and names of people

I think that desire for a civ to be a cultural group explains why post colonial/very modern nations always kind of feel a little odd as they're multicultural or borrow from a parent culture to the point that they don't feel as distinct as the more ancient civs... But there is going to be an America in Civ7, so there probably should be an Australia, Canada and Brazil...

And there's a limit to how much splitting blobs makes sense. I mean, just think of how much you could deblob european civs like Spain, Germany or France if you really wanted to split by culture groups! (Please don't do this firaxis, we really don't need civ to get even more europe-centric).

 

[Uberfrog]

I've talked about this elsewhere, but I much rather see these blob civs be split into their constituent ethnicities, rather than the ruling dynasties. So for example, instead of saying "Persia gets split into Achaemenids, Sassanians and Safavids" we should really be saying "Iran gets split into Persia, Elam, Media, Parthia, Scythia, Tabaristan and Kurdistan"; less emphasis on high culture and names of empires, more emphasis on low culture and names of people

I don’t think this is a solution, though, as large empires are inevitably multi-ethnic. The various Iranian empires are perfect examples of this, and have always been a confederation of various ethnic groups.

Separating Persia from Media might make sense in 700BC but a few hundred years they were an integral part of the Achaemenid empire.

And while the Safavid dynasty had Kurdish origins, the empire was administered and run by people from all over, including Georgians and Circassians.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I've talked about this elsewhere, but I much rather see these blob civs be split into their constituent ethnicities, rather than the ruling dynasties. So for example, instead of saying "Persia gets split into Achaemenids, Sassanians and Safavids" we should really be saying "Iran gets split into Persia, Elam, Media, Parthia, Scythia, Tabaristan and Kurdistan"; less emphasis on high culture and names of empires, more emphasis on low culture and names of people

Well, it seems like Civ 6 already did the latter, to an extent, considering we got Persia and Scythia as separate civs, and even an Elamite city-state.

 

[AffineConstant]

I think that desire for a civ to be a cultural group explains why post colonial/very modern nations always kind of feel a little odd as they're multicultural or borrow from a parent culture to the point that they don't feel as distinct as the more ancient civs... But there is going to be an America in Civ7, so there probably should be an Australia, Canada and Brazil...

And there's a limit to how much splitting blobs makes sense. I mean, just think of how much you could deblob european civs like Spain, Germany or France if you really wanted to split by culture groups! (Please don't do this firaxis, we really don't need civ to get even more europe-centric).

I think people have a mistaken belief in the unity of ethnicities, or old civilizations for that matter. "Multiethnic" is kind of a made up term devised by the sort of people that want the loyalty of one group by blaming another group and saying they're "different".

Most anyone from ancient Greece would be a bit baffled if you told them they were unified, or maybe even an ethnicity. Looking at their what we can tell of their world view, they were citizens of a specific polis, hopefully, which is very different thank you from that other polis over there who were their sworn enemies. As for being "Greek", multiple of these Polis would and did as happily take coin to turn on their fellow Polis from say, whatever empire was ruling "Persia" at the time, and that's in conjuction with the Persian Emperor's army. What was this "Greece" and "Greek culture" you keep speaking of? Just because we happen to mostly speak the same language doesn't mean we care anything for them.

Humans love making up divisions, splitting groups into more groups and more, saying this or that "matters". Today it's "ethnicitys" and "cultures". In ancient Greece it was Polis (city, more or less), during much of Ancient Rome you were only Roman if you were from Rome itself, thus literally the name. The idea of anyone else getting to vote was abhorrent, they were the conquered!

I don't see that today's popular trend of ethnicities is anymore valid than the thousands of dividing lines humans have come up with to somehow separate one group of people from another over the millennia, and don't see it as any benefit in acknowledging such things in Civ. "Civilization" lends itself a distinct enough thing right in the name, a vague but generally agreed on historical box people from all around the world would recognize and sort of agree on "the Egyptian Civilization, the Greek Civilization, the Chinese Civilization." More than good enough for rough guidelines as to inclusion in the game, and one without getting people mad, which pretty much any invitation towards "distinct ethnic groups" is guaranteed to get very, very angry people to have opinions on very quickly.

 

[Lord Lakely]

Civs should always be split alongside empires and dynasties, rather than cultures whenever possible. The nature of a 4X game (which sees you build and manage an empire) basically demands that you do.

You also need to think about uniques and abilities, and by simply looking at the empire's history and how they managed to remain an empire over decades, sometimes even centuries, you can get a lot of useful abilities out of that.

Cultures are basically the Civ themselves.

 

[SupremacyKing2]

I think one way to avoid the identification problem would be to keep the civ name and some core civ abilities while letting the player add permanent civ abilities as the game progresses. So each time you move on to a new era, you get to pick 1 new ability from a list, similar to how civ6 does pantheon beliefs. So for example, you would always be the Roman civ with the legion as the special unit and say the roman aqueduct as the special building but you might pick the "expansionist" trait in the classical era, the "philosopher" trait in the middle ages, the "industrialist" trait in the modern era. So by the late game, you would still be the Roman civ, with the legion and aqueduct but also be expansionist, philosopher and industrialist. This idea would let the player shape their civ and make their civ more powerful as the game progresses while still keeping the core identity.