Starting as Tribes in Civ 7

[Zegangani]

What would be you ideal approach of evolving Civilizations if Civ 7 adapted this Concept?

For me an Approach like this would be the optimal way to go with:

- Prehistory (Stone Age): starting as Tribes (only exploring the Map (with short sight radius) and Gathering Food/Hunting, but no settlement)
- Ancient Era (Bronze/Iron Age): either in late Prehistory or in the early Ancient Era the Tribes start to settle down as small villages. Mid/Late Ancient Era the Villages start to become City-States (independantly).
- Classic Era*: in the Early Classic the CSs may start to combine each other's Forces and form Pacts (defense, war..etc). Mid/Late Classic the CSs that have a Pact with each other may evolve to one single Civilization.
- From the Middle Age onwards** : the CSs that didn't evolve to a Civilization may join other Civs (depends on Government, Loyalty, Ideologies, Status of the Other Civ...etc).

* In the Classical Era, if a Settler lefts a City he will have to start as a small Village that may not be part of the CityState/Civ (may evolve to a new CS).
** In the Middle Age, if a Settler lefts a City he will start as a small Village too, but it will be part of the CS/Civ.

Note: there won't be any Barbarians. The Tribes and Villages may act as Barbs if they dont like a CS/Civ, or Settle too close to them (The Villages).

 

[Naokaukodem]

Looking at your registration date, may i point you to a topic I made previously that is in my signature ? You might see along the 3 pages of the topic that i've came up with some problems and concerns, but don't take care too much, I think overall the problems are probably solvable.

And from now on I still think starting around 12000-10000 BCE would be needed, considering we have to reasearch agriculture (first evidences of agriculture are 10000 BCE, and probably even sooner in reality) in order to establish cities and states first, that a little time would be needed in order to do so, and that one can choose to stay non agricultural efficiently during the time that suits one. (so not everybody might have agriculture turn -12000, opposed as everybody have it in -4000 in Civ5 and 6 at least)

 

[Zegangani]

Looking at your registration date, may i point you to a topic I made previously that is in my signature ? You might see along the 3 pages of the topic that i've came up with some problems and concerns, but don't take care too much, I think overall the problems are probably solvable.

And from now on I still think starting around 12000-10000 BCE would be needed, considering we have to reasearch agriculture (first evidences of agriculture are 10000 BCE, and probably even sooner in reality) in order to establish cities and states first, that a little time would be needed in order to do so, and that one can choose to stay non agricultural efficiently during the time that suits one. (so not everybody might have agriculture turn -12000, opposed as everybody have it in -4000 in Civ5 and 6 at least)

Yeah, I'm practically new to this Forum. There are too many good Threads here to browse them all one by one. But Thank you for pointing me out to your thread!

Really good content there. I haven't yet gone through all the Posts (but I'll difenitely read though the Thread), but a lot of what you suggested could be done in Civ 6 (via Modding). Gedemon has already proved that we can make Population (not the standard City Pop) not tied completely to Cities but Tiles (Although, he didn't finish this Concept, and IIRC it was for the purpose of Immigrating Pop). If we don't want Tribes to settle a City we could simply remove the Settler as a startng Unit, and make, as you suggested in your Thread, Tribe Camps occupy some few Tiles, and once the Camp has been occopied by a Unit for a long Time it may turn into a City. We could also strict this latter's Tiles range, perhaps no further than 2 Tiles away from the City Center in the Ancient Era?

I completely agree. Having the option to choose your approach to agriculture will have a big impact on a Tribe/Camp/City's Fate. But the problem lies more in the Tech Tree rather than in the Terrain types worked. The current Civ 6 Tech Tree is linear and the same for every Civ. That shouldn't be the Case. a Tundra Civ shouldn't unlock Irrigation Tech in order to research Techs further in the Tech Tree, just like other Civs. Overall, All the Techs shouldn't be tied strictly to each other in order to progress to the next one. They must be unlocked via the circumstances/experiences of the Civ, via Trades/Deals with other Civs that have those Techs and via observation (a Recon Unit that explored a Harbor Tile of another Civ should trigger an appropriate Tech boost for it's owner).

At least now it's possible to alter the Tech/Civic Trees, so we can add more Eras to them. But as Gudenuf said in that Thread, the problem is how to keep the early Era interresting and challenging. I've recently made a Mod that let's a player to cultivate a Resource once it is improved in his Territory. But since the Game starts in 4000 BCE, much of the Mod's potential is lost (Resources like Wheat, Rice and Wine were cultivated way befor 4000 BCE (by 4000 BCE Wheat reached nearly every major Civilization of that Time, and the Time before)). I would love it if I could implement the Mod to fit the agriculture developpement of a Civ in the early Era. It would diffenitely make the early era more interresting.

 

[Naokaukodem]

But the problem lies more in the Tech Tree rather than in the Terrain types worked.

If i'm correct with my idea the player would be *very* busy at start, since one would have to manage each population point separately. At the point it would make the game nearly unplayable in multiplayer. Imagine that your state collapses, you will find yourself with as many "units" as citizens all over the map to reassign better. And it could not only happen in ancient times, we could imagine that the climate change would add more Coercion Points threeshold to reach, hence creating collapses late. Late, I guess a collapse would mean more Anarchy in a state with solid frontiers, a little bit like the "only golden/dark ages" mode. I mean, some cities could become independant (while still remaining on your control more or less ?), while some others completely adandonned, and your citizens sparsed on the map in your old kingdom, kingdoms you have a free passage treaty with, allies, space liberated by civs that already collapsed, or even countries you don't have right of passage with, probably excluding the countries you are at war with or have denounced, or yet more the country you have been at war within 10 turns. (the people would not migrate there by fear of persecution)

I would like also, although not mentionned, that tribes/races/cultures to be bigger at start than the citizens you control. For example, there could be geographic "hegemony" of some culture, while not united, as it happened nearly all the time in ancient era : Celts were dispatched in various states, mongol clans have to unit before going to war (even if it's by war), etc.

If you could make a mod out of this, even partially, it would be astonishing for me, although i've been certified earlier that such a mod would be completely unfeasible in Civ6 in the Creation forum.

 

[Zegangani]

Ok, I will talk with a Civ VI Glasses on:

If i'm correct with my idea the player would be *very* busy at start, since one would have to manage each population point separately ... Imagine that your state collapses, you will find yourself with as many "units" as citizens all over the map to reassign better... and your citizens sparsed on the map in your old kingdom, kingdoms you have a free passage treaty with, allies, space liberated by civs that already collapsed, or even countries you don't have right of passage with, probably excluding the countries you are at war with or have denounced...

That would go perfectly well with a "Rising and Falling Civs" Concept. Although it's a good Idea, managing each Pop Point seperately would be too much of MicroManagement (except If made only for the Early Era, where you only have few Populations), and the AI (Or more likely IA: Ill Advised) is already not smart enough to even use ONE Unit effeciently (The new SS Units, Vampires and Cultists, are made by the Game's Devs, but still not used properly by AI). Another Issue for this (even if AI would be smart enough to handle this), is that this would require a code that handles every Population/Citizen of all the Civ's Cities, that means a VERY LONG Time between Turns, especially in later eras where there are to many Cities with lots of population.

A good approach to this is to make it City wise. Collapses are City based, but your other more "stable" Cities could be affected by a City that collapsed (less Loyalty...etc). So if these Cities are not properly managed, they might as well collapse (Anarchy). The Citizens then would migrate to other Cities (to your more stable Cities, Friendly Neighboor Cities, Allys,...etc), and based on the current status of the collapsing City, it might turn to an Independant City/CS, Join another Civ or it would completely collapse (a destroyed City). And If it turns to an independent City, then there have to be a chance for the City to rejoin it's original Civ (If this latter has managed it's Cities well, based on government...etc), durring a limited amount of Time/Turns after it left the Civ's control. But this has to be automated, i.e not directly managable.

I would like also, although not mentionned, that tribes/races/cultures to be bigger at start than the citizens you control. For example, there could be geographic "hegemony" of some culture, while not united, as it happened nearly all the time in ancient era : Celts were dispatched in various states, mongol clans have to unit before going to war (even if it's by war), etc.

Tbh, I was thinking a lot about ethnicity in Culture lately. A "hegemony" of cultures based on the continent is a good approach to make unique cultures, that would also go perfectly hand in hand with an Ideology Systeme. Concerning uniting Cities, in order to do that, the Cities must be first Independant (CSs), and there have to be some kind of Effort elements toward those Cities in order to unite them. Like being suzerain of a CS that has the same Culture as your City that is on the same continent, would make the CS more likely to join/convert to your Civilization (it's not the common "uniting", but a some kind of it).

Modding wise, these Ideas/Mechanisms have to have a clear and simple concept, that might also make use of the current Mechanisms/Elements aswell (Loyalty, Government, Happines...etc) and is conform with the modding possibilities. So that it is: 1) Moddable, 2) Easy for AI to handle and 3) Easy for the Player to understand and play with, without too much Micromanagement.
As an Example for that, I thought of a similar immigration Systeme as you suggested, you can have a look here. (Although it's set to be automated, stearable but not directly managable)

So to come back to your Idea: If you could design it so that it fits the criterias above, I will diffenitely try to mod it, since the part of migrating Citizens is indeed moddable, but many things will have to be automated (and it's actually better, because it means less Micromanaging).

 

[Gabriel Ovadia]

What would be you ideal approach of evolving Civilizations if Civ 7 adapted this Concept?

For me an Approach like this would be the optimal way to go with:

- Prehistory (Stone Age): starting as Tribes (only exploring the Map (with short sight radius) and Gathering Food/Hunting, but no settlement)
- Ancient Era (Bronze/Iron Age): either in late Prehistory or in the early Ancient Era the Tribes start to settle down as small villages. Mid/Late Ancient Era the Villages start to become City-States (independantly).
- Classic Era*: in the Early Classic the CSs may start to combine each other's Forces and form Pacts (defense, war..etc). Mid/Late Classic the CSs that have a Pact with each other may evolve to one single Civilization.
- From the Middle Age onwards** : the CSs that didn't evolve to a Civilization may join other Civs (depends on Government, Loyalty, Ideologies, Status of the Other Civ...etc).

* In the Classical Era, if a Settler lefts a City he will have to start as a small Village that may not be part of the CityState/Civ (may evolve to a new CS).
** In the Middle Age, if a Settler lefts a City he will start as a small Village too, but it will be part of the CS/Civ.

Note: there won't be any Barbarians. The Tribes and Villages may act as Barbs if they dont like a CS/Civ, or Settle too close to them (The Villages).

That's an interesting concpet - even though it's merely viewing the techtree as a factor of economies of scale. For example permanant alliance allows a "merger" between tribes, while later in the game you can do it among civilizations.
However many questions are floating in the air - such as - which unique unit will be preserved? which unique building? etc.

 

[Zegangani]

That's an interesting concpet - even though it's merely viewing the techtree as a factor of economies of scale. For example permanant alliance allows a "merger" between tribes, while later in the game you can do it among civilizations.
However many questions are floating in the air - such as - which unique unit will be preserved? which unique building? etc.

Yes, that would be an optimal way to found Civilzation. But for Civilzations Alliances I would prefer it, if there would be some kind of political Marriage, contracted with a diplomatic Deal. But yet, not a perfect reason to merge Civs.

About the question of Uniques: I think if 2 Civs decide to merge with each other, then it's going to be a New Civilization, with it's own Uniques. Otherwise, it coud just keep all the Uniques of both original Civs.

 

[Henri Christophe]

A tribe can be a civ who never settle a city, or if settle stay nomadic.

I would like to see it, as a Maori who wins points each turn don't settle a city.


Maybe some nomadic nation as Tupinambá can have this abillity.

 

[Zegangani]

Although Tribes can be Nomads, but they can't be considered as Civilizations. Unless, some Tibes decide to join each other and found a Civ.

Yeah, I could imagine nomadic nations not settling in a Place. I can only see this happening in Civ 7 if the Devs decide to make an earlier game start, where all Civs start as Tribes/Nomads. Making this just for 1~2 Civs wouldn't be worth the effort, beause they wouldn't get the same infrastructure/City management, Tech/Civic Research Systems as the other Civs. Too much rework.

 

[Naokaukodem]

Ok, I will talk with a Civ VI Glasses on:

That would go perfectly well with a "Rising and Falling Civs" Concept. Although it's a good Idea, managing each Pop Point seperately would be too much of MicroManagement (except If made only for the Early Era, where you only have few Populations), and the AI (Or more likely IA: Ill Advised) is already not smart enough to even use ONE Unit effeciently (The new SS Units, Vampires and Cultists, are made by the Game's Devs, but still not used properly by AI). Another Issue for this (even if AI would be smart enough to handle this), is that this would require a code that handles every Population/Citizen of all the Civ's Cities, that means a VERY LONG Time between Turns, especially in later eras where there are to many Cities with lots of population.

A good approach to this is to make it City wise. Collapses are City based, but your other more "stable" Cities could be affected by a City that collapsed (less Loyalty...etc). So if these Cities are not properly managed, they might as well collapse (Anarchy). The Citizens then would migrate to other Cities (to your more stable Cities, Friendly Neighboor Cities, Allys,...etc), and based on the current status of the collapsing City, it might turn to an Independant City/CS, Join another Civ or it would completely collapse (a destroyed City). And If it turns to an independent City, then there have to be a chance for the City to rejoin it's original Civ (If this latter has managed it's Cities well, based on government...etc), durring a limited amount of Time/Turns after it left the Civ's control. But this has to be automated, i.e not directly managable.


Tbh, I was thinking a lot about ethnicity in Culture lately. A "hegemony" of cultures based on the continent is a good approach to make unique cultures, that would also go perfectly hand in hand with an Ideology Systeme. Concerning uniting Cities, in order to do that, the Cities must be first Independant (CSs), and there have to be some kind of Effort elements toward those Cities in order to unite them. Like being suzerain of a CS that has the same Culture as your City that is on the same continent, would make the CS more likely to join/convert to your Civilization (it's not the common "uniting", but a some kind of it).

Modding wise, these Ideas/Mechanisms have to have a clear and simple concept, that might also make use of the current Mechanisms/Elements aswell (Loyalty, Government, Happines...etc) and is conform with the modding possibilities. So that it is: 1) Moddable, 2) Easy for AI to handle and 3) Easy for the Player to understand and play with, without too much Micromanagement.
As an Example for that, I thought of a similar immigration Systeme as you suggested, you can have a look here. (Although it's set to be automated, stearable but not directly managable)

So to come back to your Idea: If you could design it so that it fits the criterias above, I will diffenitely try to mod it, since the part of migrating Citizens is indeed moddable, but many things will have to be automated (and it's actually better, because it means less Micromanaging).

Okay... thx for the input.

Well, it seems tough. VERY tough. My concept stands on citizens being units, so I see little if not no route to go with Civ6. Playing with the already existing concepts of cities, razing, units, 1UPT, citizens, seems like a puzzle. Because it's no mean if I have to make a totally different thing. And I don't know anything about programming, at least modern versions. So... I think it's not possible, unfortunately.

 

[Meowzer]

Your civ (stats/abilities) is primarily a product of your choices.

Tribes migrate over time and their skin color changes. You might pick 'Germanic' at start of the game, and your choices make you end up as 'Germans' or 'Dutch'. Choosing 'African' means an earlier start date. There is climate change - you can get cut off from the rest of the world after a continental bridge melts away.

Another civ might be the same 'civ' as you, but you would retain your chosen name in any case. (There could be several 'German' civs at once - other choices would make the civs more different over the course of the game).

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Just a few comments:

The Starting Nomadic Tribe concept is one of the first differences between the entire Civ Franchise and the new Humankind game that hit you: in the latter, everybody starts in a Neolithic "Pre-Era" as a wandering group of Hunter-Gatherers. So far, as of the last pre-game 'build' (the 'Lucy' variant that ran over the holidays) during the Neolithic you can wander the map, attack other tribes or animals (and get Food from both, implying Cannibalism as a Basic Human trait, but also allowing you to form more 'Tribes'), pick up Food or Science 'bonuses', and found 'Outposts' which give you limited control over territory. You cannot start an actual Faction/Civilization, start a City, or start researching anything (although the Science Boosts from the Neolithic will give you a 'running start' on your first research in the Ancient Era). When you have enough Tribes formed or Science boosted, you progress to the Ancient Era by picking your first Faction/Civilization.

There's a lot about this to like, but also a lot of limitations built into it that are directly contrary to the historical and archeological evidence.

First and foremost, the Neolithic saw a lot of cities founded. It was by no means simply wandering small tribal groups littering the landscape. In addition, a large percentage of the human population, even without starting anything resembling a city, had settled down and was not wandering much throughout much of the Neolithic.
Second and equally important, a lot of the early founded Cities also disappeared during the Neolithic: they were fragile, and food concentration technologies were primitive, and it didn't take much (a couple of years of flood, drought, locusts, etc) to make the city dwellers give it up and go back to wandering - frequently, to wandering over to another city or settlement. Loyalty was a pretty fragile concept also.
Third, a lot of Technology was discovered and exploited in the Neolithic. In fact, I could make a case that most of the early Tech Tree in Civ should be Neolithic - or at least, in the right circumstances, the possibility of discovering and using them should be pushed back to the Neolithic.

That, however, brings up the major problem that has stifled the 'wandering Civ' concept for over 20 years: IF as in Civ, all population growth and accumulation of Gold, Research, Production (and more recently, Religion) are linked to Cities, how do you get any of them without first starting - and maintaining - a City?

Humankind started a solution by allowing Food and Science to accumulate from on-map 'Bonuses' that could be discovered in the Neolithic, but then dodged by making none of the results from Science be applicable until the Ancient Era. That is, no matter how many Science Bonuses you accumulate in the Neolithic, in Humankind you don't get a single solitary Technological advance from any of that until the Ancient Era - after your first City is founded.

Finally, and connected to any Nomadic Start is the problem of Nomadic/Pastoral Civilizations: groups of herders who (for the most part) didn't found or live in Cities, but still made significant Technological advances (spoked wheel Chariots, saddlery and tack, Horsemanship, Mounted Archery, lost wax metal casting, etc) and had a major influence on neighboring 'settled' Civs and overland trade across Asia.

There are some characteristics of the Neolithic that aim at a solution, I think:

First, 'Culture' and 'Loyalty', as stated, are pretty Fluid Concepts. Populations regularly left or arrived in city or settlement concentrations, and a great deal of city growth was from immigration (voluntary or forced - slave raiding was a major activity among all the early cities, apparently) rather than Birth Rate. That's because when people first congregated in larger-than-family-or-clan groups (Cities) they also made transmission of epidemic disease dramatically easier in those groups: without immigration, no city could have survived for long.
Second, even before discovering agriculture (which dates back to around 10,000 BCE) people were living in Settlements that didn't move: good fishing sites along the coast or along rivers or near extensive marshlands full of fat waterfowl or migration routes of large animals - places where food was relatively abundant even for Hunter-Gatherers.
Third, Animal Domestication of the large 'food' animals is almost contemporary with the earliest Agriculture: evidence of sheep, goats, and pigs living with or near people in settlements also dates back to just after 10,000 BCE (and may be earlier: it is very hard to tell the difference between domestic and hunted sheep, goats or pigs from just skeletal archeological evidence).

So, for an instance, let's hypothesize a game in which you start around 10,000 BCE with a Tribal Group. Based on your surroundings, which might include Specific Science Bonuses from either Wild Grains (wheat, rice, etc) or domesticable Food Animals (cattle, sheep, goats, horses primarily) your Group might quickly develop either Agriculture or Animal Domestication - the two 'starting' Technologies. Whichever you start with, that will determine a lot about your settlement and technological pattern in the immediate future:
Agriculture as a basic Food Source will lead to immediate Settlement and development of Technologies like Irrigation (primitive) and, if you have a Draft Animal source (cattle, horse) to Plows, Draft Animals (a 'bonus' towards the Wheel) and, in the case of cattle, horse, sheep or goats, to Storage Foods - cheese and similar 'secondary products' that can be stored over the winter with dramatic results to your Population growth and health.
Animal Domestication will still allow you to form a Settlement, herding between grazing sites around the settlement within a day's walk or so. IF the domestic animals include Horses, early Horse Riding, accompanied by solid-wheel carts or travois, allow animals to be 'herded' over a much larger distance, and your Settlement can become a Mobile Settlement. Your mounted herders can also become Raiders using the extra mobility of the horse, but the technology to form Armies and fight effectively from horseback comes much later: there is no such thing as a Neolithic Horde, but there will be a possibility for such persistent raiding that you force other Settlements to move away, giving you access to more territory/grazing/settlement sites of your own.
Yes, the old 'Cain and Abel' or Farmer versus Herder dichotomy is a Real Thing since the Neolithic

Among the Technologies available (potentially, not Absolutely) in the Neolithic are:
Pottery - dates back to 15 - 18,000 BCE
Agriculture:
taro (26,000 BCE)!
potato (9000 BCE)
rice (9000 BCE)
barley (8500 BCE)
wheat (8500 BCE)
millet (8000 BCE)
Animal Domestication:
Sheep (10,000 BCE)
Goats (10,000 BCE)
Pigs (10,000 BCE)
Cattle (8500 BCE)
Horses (5000 - 4200 BCE) - intense debate on-going about the exact date
Horseback Riding (4300 BCE)
Wheel (solid wheeled carts) (4000 BCE)
Metal Working:
Copper Lead, Silver, Gold smelting - all 7000 - 5000 BCE
Metal Casting (6500 BCE)
Lead soldering to join other metals (5000 BCE)
'Secondary Foods' - Milk and Cheese production and storage (6600 BCE)
Plowing with draft animals (Oxen - cattle) (6000 BCE)
Irrigation - primitive open canal systems (5000 BCE)

Oh, and the earliest cities (Uruk, for one) seem to have originally collected around sites with Religious Structures already there, so Religion of at least a 'semi-organized' form was also in place in the Neolithic (and the Gobekli Tepe (9500 BCE) monumental site may be viewed as a Proto-City of sorts)

And another 'potential' Tech: Warren Field in Scotland shows evidence of being trhe earliest known calendar construction, aligned with the solstices and lunar ccycle and built around 8000 BCE

So, possibly add Calendar to the Neolithic Techs and some sort of Social 'Policy' related to Religion to the possible 'advances'

The requirement to form Settlements into Cities would also be Social and not Technological: the concept of Heirarchy, or someone in charge who is not simply the oldest family member surviving, seems to have been crucial to keeping a city working: sites such as Catal Huyok which had a population estimated at up to 2000 but no sign of any heirarchy (all dwellings the same size, no central granary, worship site, ceremonial site, gathering site) fell apart as soon as things got bad (in Huyok's case, a drought). Given the examples of the religious structures preceding cities that proved permanent, having a Religious authority in place first might also be a clue or at east a Bonus towards 'real' City forming.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Humankind started a solution by allowing Food and Science to accumulate from on-map 'Bonuses' that could be discovered in the Neolithic, but then dodged by making none of the results from Science be applicable until the Ancient Era. That is, no matter how many Science Bonuses you accumulate in the Neolithic, in Humankind you don't get a single solitary Technological advance from any of that until the Ancient Era - after your first City is founded.

I wouldn't mind if they did something similar to that in Civ too. By gathering enough food to accumulate it would trigger the first technology "agriculture" in order for you to settle cities and build farm improvements.

However instead of calling it the Neolithic Era would it make more sense to just call it the Prehistoric Era, considering all of the other advancements of the Neolithic Era such as pottery, animal domestication, wheel etc. would be in the Ancient Era in game?

 

[Ryansinbela]

Because I think the Neolithic coincides with that point in history (Prehistoric would be longer as it is a term for multiple eras and the Paleolithic and Mesolithic are too far back)

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Because I think the Neolithic coincides with that point in history (Prehistoric would be longer as it is a term for multiple eras and the Paleolithic and Mesolithic are too far back)

There's also a problem of Accuracy: "Prehistoric" means no written records, and that covers a lot of Post-Ancient, even Post-Classical Era "Civilizations" and groups. On the other hand, while the "Neolithic' period of time (roughly, 10,000 - 4000 BCE) does include some metal-working, it is mostly Ornamental (Amenity?) and has little effect: a group with copper axes and blades doesn't have a huge advantage over a group with polished stone maces and obsidian blades.

 

[Zegangani]

Taking true historical Events in account and considering the approaches of Humankind concerning Tribes in a "Prehistoric-Era" which @Boris Gudenuf has kindly illustrated, a good approach to implement this in a Game without the Issue of playing the early Era with actions that can only benefited from till the next era, could look like This:

While in standard Eras the Player would rely on Science and Culture developpement that get granted mostly by infrastructure, in the Early Era he cannot rely on that, as it is practically a beginning for the humankind exploring the earth. Therefore, developpement in the early Era will be dependant on Experience (that will also be the major inducement for settling Villages/towns and Cities). My concept for that looks like this:

- First: The Early Era will start around 10,000 BC with Tribes with 2 Types of Units, Hunters and Gatherers. Hunters would hunt Animal resources that wander around the Map (movement depends on resource (Mamoths slower than Deers) - The Hunters could also act as Barbs by attacking other Tribes) and Gatherers gathering non-animal food resources. both will grant food, Experience and an x amount in science or culture that will give a boost to certain techs or civics, like for example every time a Gatherer gathers berries or citrus, this will give a boost to the Agriculture tech (and will also collect experience) till the tech gets unlocked, so that the player can work plant based resources directly. And same thing for Hunters, once sheep has been hunted a lot of times, Animal domestication gets unlocked and the player will be able to domesticate animal resources. (So no need to "research" the early techs and civics, but they get unlocked via direct actions).

- Second: Once the first tier of techs in the early era is unlocked and the Experience Threshold needed for settling Villages/Towns has been reached, the Player will have the ability to settle small Villages/Towns for residance, and each Village will be a unique Clan. Villages would then unlock the ability to train Builders that can work tiles effectively (granting more Yields) and Herders who can herd animals from other tiles to the village. The Village would also allow directly acquire other Yields, like Faith with rites represented by an infrastructure. But there will be no social hierarchy in villages. With excess in food, the village will grow in number of Citizens (and also by other, friendly, tribes migrating to that village), so that deseases will be unavoidable, but not un-survivable. And Natural Events like Earth quakes, flooding and drought can affect a Village. Hence, Citizens will leave that village, migrating to other villages/clans or start a settlement on their own (that kinda will represent a nomadic tribe), so that a Village may be fully abandoned and therefore disappear.

- Third: If a Village/Town manages to survive events like deseases and natural events long enough, that would imply the achieveness of the second Threshold (and correspond to the Experience collected through all the actions from the Village and it's Units), that of Settling Cities. The Village will then turn into a City and the Player will have the ability to train Settlers. Cities will then have social structures and hierarchies, and therefore, a path to diplomacy and politics, but would still keep the clan status. A Clan could also befriend with other Clans, and friendships that last through the early era to the Ancient Era may form a whole Civilization (and then you can choose a unique culture for it).

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

@Zegangani, I think that's a very good outline concept for a workable Neolithic/Pre-Era.

One thing that I am convinced of from a lot of reading in the past year or so on Neolithic and 'prehistoric' developments is that there is absolutely no need to tie the earliest settlements, clans, peoples, groups, or even cities to any Historical Culture/Civilization. What made even the earliest Civilizations Unique: language, culture, technology, architecture, was either dependent on available resources (terrain, climate, food and construction sources) or so close to their general Start Line that there simply aren't many Unique Trends that have to start before the first recognizable Civilization, complete with city names, named Leader, et al.

That means that, like Humankind but more detailed, we can allow the Neolithic groups to develop according to the in-game situation, and don't have to try to 'back date' Civ Uniques of any kind into our Neolithic groups.

 

[Zegangani]

@Zegangani, I think that's a very good outline concept for a workable Neolithic/Pre-Era.

One thing that I am convinced of from a lot of reading in the past year or so on Neolithic and 'prehistoric' developments is that there is absolutely no need to tie the earliest settlements, clans, peoples, groups, or even cities to any Historical Culture/Civilization. What made even the earliest Civilizations Unique: language, culture, technology, architecture, was either dependent on available resources (terrain, climate, food and construction sources) or so close to their general Start Line that there simply aren't many Unique Trends that have to start before the first recognizable Civilization, complete with city names, named Leader, et al.

That means that, like Humankind but more detailed, we can allow the Neolithic groups to develop according to the in-game situation, and don't have to try to 'back date' Civ Uniques of any kind into our Neolithic groups.

I completely agree. Tying specific Cultures or Civilisations for Tribes/Clans beforehand doesn't make any sense, as the Tribes are just starting to explore their environment (resources) and gather experience through that. So, having dynamic Tribes/Clans that evolve according to their environment and situation would be a great way to eradicate the pre-bound culture/civilization for them.

And that shouldn't be restricted to just the Neolithic groups, but persist throughout the evolutionary path of all Cities/Civilizations. That would not only introduce Ethnicity in Cultures but also the Rise and Fall of them (like IRL). And We could also take the mechanism from Humankind that allows picking cultures for a Civ every Era, and remodel it, so that Cities/Civs whose acquired culture resembles a true historical Culture, will then gain that historical Culture (allongside it's unique Traits and UI/UU). I think this would be perfect for a Game that isn't intended as a History simulation, but one based on true histocal events. Because this would keep the Game historically accurate without relying on cultures/traits planned beforehand for the Civilizations. And since Tribes/Clans/Civs will be evolving, and hence dynamic, insofar as every Game will be a completely new experience for the Player.

This systeme could also be applied for an Ideology Systeme, but I can not think of a good concept for it rn.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

I completely agree. Tying specific Cultures or Civilisations for Tribes/Clans beforehand doesn't make any sense, as the Tribes are just starting to explore their environment (resources) and gather experience through that. So, having dynamic Tribes/Clans that evolve according to their environment and situation would be a great way to eradicate the pre-bound culture/civilization for them.

And that shouldn't be restricted to just the Neolithic groups, but persist throughout the evolutionary path of all Cities/Civilizations. That would not only introduce Ethnicity in Cultures but also the Rise and Fall of them (like IRL). And We could also take the mechanism from Humankind that allows picking cultures for a Civ every Era, and remodel it, so that Cities/Civs whose acquired culture resembles a true historical Culture, will then gain that historical Culture (allongside it's unique Traits and UI/UU). I think this would be perfect for a Game that isn't intended as a History simulation, but one based on true histocal events. Because this would keep the Game historically accurate without relying on cultures/traits planned beforehand for the Civilizations. And since Tribes/Clans/Civs will be evolving, and hence dynamic, insofar as every Game will be a completely new experience for the Player.

This systeme could also be applied for an Ideology Systeme, but I can not think of a good concept for it rn.

Ethnicity, Ideology, and their handmaidens "race" and "Nationalism" are very tricky concepts to game.
First, because no two Civs seem to have had the same definition of any of them: Rome had Emperors who were distinctly non-Roman, China had several Dynasties (not just the Yuan) who were ethnically only semi-Chinese, and Persian and Turk both included groups that were not originally combined or unitary at all, and who in their turn carved out Civs as distinct as the Seljuks, Parthians, Achaemenids, Ottomans, and Sassanids, without even mentioning the various Khanates further east. It's a real Historical Rat's Nest, and a potential minefield of marketing problems if you try to equate any race or nationality with specific Uniques: no matter how positive it all seems to you, somebody is going to get offended.

I think somehow the Loyalty (for lack of another current word for a game concept) of a population needs to be tied to some extent with differences in Race and Nationality, but for most of the game 'race' won't mean what people think it means today, and 'nationality' would be a meaningless noise, actually referring to membership in a much smaller group than any modern 'nation' and subject to extreme changes as the game goes along. For an example: "French" originally excluded or only marginally included Normans, Burgundians, Provencial, Britons, Lorrainers, and numerous other groups within what is now modern France - and that was the Normal Situation almost everywhere and everwhen, not an anomaly for most of historical times.

 

[Zegangani]

Yeah, they are tricky concepts, and perhaps the reason why Games rarely implement them (and too complicated to implement properly). And since a single Civ can have ethnic diversity among it's own Clans/Cities/Regions, there can not be an Ethnicity/Race for a civilization as a whole.

So Races/Nationalities could be instead represented by the Country/Region where Clans/Civs are settled, like geographic hegemony of cultures that @Naokaukodem suggested.