Splitting of Civilizations

[pokiehl]

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.

Earning more abilities over time? You mean like when you build wonders? Or pick governor promotions? Or get city-state suzerain bonuses? Or earn various Great People? Or add religious beliefs? Or choose a new government and legacy card? Or pick a Government Plaza building? Or level up alliances? Or unlock new policies? Or settle near natural wonders? Or...

 

[SupremacyKing2]

Earning more abilities over time? You mean like when you build wonders? Or pick governor promotions? Or get city-state suzerain bonuses? Or earn various Great People? Or add religious beliefs? Or choose a new government and legacy card? Or pick a Government Plaza building? Or level up alliances? Or unlock new policies? Or settle near natural wonders? Or...

Yes but it would be done differently. It would be a new trait that every civ would automatically get to pick when they start a new era. And they would be major traits, like a big civ ability. And it would be something automatic, not something that you have to earn like those other things. And they would be traits that would not be available from these other things. So it would be in addition to all those other micro bonuses that you get.

 

[Hygro]

The core audience of civilization is, roughly, those who learned 6th grade world history and felt a stirring, who then are also the same people to go on to learn how chauvinistic the civ worldview inherently is. We disdain that in real life discourse, but still love the game.

How to answer that tension in 2024 is tough. Too little and we're back to "There are 8 civilizations: England, France, Germany, Rome, Russia, Greece, China, and Africa" and too much and you've got the Peoples Front of Judea vs the Judea's People's Front.

I would say it's somewhere between "it's exciting to play Rome and via emergent narration recognize later you're the Italians" and "It's way sicker to be the very different identity of Venice".

 

[Somebody613]

Civ could learn a thing or a dozen from CK3 in the context of culture merging/splitting/adapting.
Then add some pinpoint RFC stuff to hone it further.
Then realize that C2C was right about the culture mechanic all along, loool.
And then combine everything... and throw it in the bin, because "it's too hard to implement, and we aren't paid enough to do it".
I betcha.

 

[Lazy sweeper]

I like the idea of multiple Ai for every civ, with different traits.

On a Computer perspective, these Ai could work in unison, following a civ, or later National identity, or Agenda, until some Alien trait appears and Hijack the Military commander Ai and take full control over the other Ai, transforming a peaceful civ into a bloodthirsty one, or the contrary.

On a Player perspective there are already enough conflicts between choices of what kind of civ one wants to pursues, but it would be interesting to see your Army taken over by an Alien Ai and try a revolution on you, or else a bunch of cities declare independence because they developed their own language and identity and just trying to suppress them is bankrupting you so it'd be better lose them. That loyalty mechanic I completely despise when it's on me.

How would it translate in real world mechanic by other means? HK isn't really a mechanic, it's just an evolve feature. HK also has loyalty per city and it's not uncommon to see entire civs burst into chaos and disappear completely with no warnings whatsoever. Maybe it would be better to include more than one civ under your control, under one ruler, but still distinct.
You play as the 'Germans' that would evolve into many Nations and you could take control over all of them, or let them go... idk, interesting maybe a scenario or two could try work on this idea, but
I'd rather stick to the old model for at least the player perspective.

 

[Somebody613]

I like the idea of multiple Ai for every civ, with different traits.

On a Computer perspective, these Ai could work in unison, following a civ, or later National identity, or Agenda, until some Alien trait appears and Hijack the Military commander Ai and take full control over the other Ai, transforming a peaceful civ into a bloodthirsty one, or the contrary.

On a Player perspective there are already enough conflicts between choices of what kind of civ one wants to pursues, but it would be interesting to see your Army taken over by an Alien Ai and try a revolution on you, or else a bunch of cities declare independence because they developed their own language and identity and just trying to suppress them is bankrupting you so it'd be better lose them. That loyalty mechanic I completely despise when it's on me.

How would it translate in real world mechanic by other means? HK isn't really a mechanic, it's just an evolve feature. HK also has loyalty per city and it's not uncommon to see entire civs burst into chaos and disappear completely with no warnings whatsoever. Maybe it would be better to include more than one civ under your control, under one ruler, but still distinct.
You play as the 'Germans' that would evolve into many Nations and you could take control over all of them, or let them go... idk, interesting maybe a scenario or two could try work on this idea, but
I'd rather stick to the old model for at least the player perspective.

I bet you haven't played THIS:
https://forums.civfanatics.com/forums/civ4-caveman-2-cosmos.449/

 

[The_goggles_do_nothing]

When playing America i'm going to build a McDonald's in your capital. Jokes aside I think there should be building you can build in other civs to spread your culture or religion.

 

[reddishrecue]

When playing America i'm going to build a McDonald's in your capital. Jokes aside I think there should be building you can build in other civs to spread your culture or religion.

Doesn't the embassy do that already? I mean it's built in other civs but it doesn't spread your culture or religion. You mean there should be techs that should do that later on though as the embassy becomes less primitive?

 

[AffineConstant]

Doesn't the embassy do that already? I mean it's built in other civs but it doesn't spread your culture or religion. You mean there should be techs that should do that later on though as the embassy becomes less primitive?

I like the idea of "culture wars", ok not the current US kind, but the kind you could put into Civ is interesting.

It could lead to cultural victories. It could do other things too, the more your culture influences various (foreign) cities, the more unhappiness those cities experience if that civ goes to war with you, etc.

Buildings, merchants building trade routes, great people, policies (however the government works), diplomacy, there could be a lot of mechanics that play into how your culture affects other civs, and how other civs culture affects yours, if it were given as much attention as religion has been in Civ.

 

[Bonyduck Campersang]

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 would go for cultures because you have a greater number of polities to represent draw from: just for the Tamils you have the Chola, Chera, Pandya and Pallava. Besides there isn't a really great amount of difference between any of these empires, so if you're doing a Chola civ why not just expand them to include other Tamil polities?.

It's the same reason I argue in favour of Hindavi/Hindustani civ: there's not so massive a difference between the Mughals and their Indo-Turko-Perso successors, the Mughals were just one more dynasty.