suggestions for civ 7

[Henri Christophe]

Last time I checked the Khazaks, Huns, and Scythians weren't European, or at least didn't originate in modern day Europe.

If we start to think where theses peoples was originated, we will discover they all originated from Africa, because the human life starts in Africa.
Despite that, Khazaks, Huns and Scythians are eurasian civilizations, they may be started their history in Asia, but make part of this history in Europe as well.

wrong! the huns, francs, visigoths, are people from east mongolia, russia, therefore not european or not mediterranean people https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huns https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visigoths https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vandals

Francs and Visigoths are very european to me, and Russia is Europe, if some nation come from Russia, it means it come from Europe too.

Either way whether they stick with historical names, or those similar to the barbarian clans mode, I'd just simply call them "tribes", which all could start out as nomadic and then some eventually live in settlements, which then could develop further into city-states depending on how hostile or aggressive they are.

Despite the word "tribe" is also a bit controversial, it is way better than barbarians. And it can be a solution if we want a new mechanic of nomadic people.

 

[Naokaukodem]

"Barbarians" is used because it is a term that is seen in History litterature. Mainly from Greek/Roman/Byzantine one. It is also used in History books around Mesopotamia, eventhough the term is contemporary of the writers, mostly modern ones. (although there might be local replacements for it) It's like all terms, it has an origin, a use and an evolution. I don't think "deleting" the term is good.
Granted it is often associated with xenophobia, but it is also associated with courage and bravery a player may want to incarnate. (or other aspects, like fear-factors) Sometimes the term is even associated with the notion of "good savage" that will come later with the great explorations, as opposed to decadence and "true" barbarism (in the trivial sense) that one can see in self-called "civilization".

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

If we start to think where theses peoples was originated, we will discover they all originated from Africa, because the human life starts in Africa.
Despite that, Khazaks, Huns and Scythians are eurasian civilizations, they may be started their history in Asia, but make part of this history in Europe as well.


Francs and Visigoths are very european to me, and Russia is Europe, if some nation come from Russia, it means it come from Europe too.

I mean modern-day Russia is very large stretching all the way to the Pacific ocean. I also mentioned the Yakuts as well, and I wouldn't call them European despite living in present-day Russia. Same goes for the Khazaks today who primarily inhabit Kazakhstan, China and Uzbekistan.

Despite the word "tribe" is also a bit controversial, it is way better than barbarians. And it can be a solution if we want a new mechanic of nomadic people.

I don't think there's a better way to describe AI non major entities who don't settle cities, unless I'm mistaken? I mean they already use the term "tribal villages" in the game, to refer to the goodie huts that your scouts and warriors collect at the start of the game.

 

[Henri Christophe]

Same goes for the Khazaks today who primarily inhabit Kazakhstan, China and Uzbekistan.

Kazakhstan, as Russia, is a country who part is in Europe and another part is in Asia.

I don't think there's a better way to describe AI non major entities who don't settle cities, unless I'm mistaken? I mean they already use the term "tribal villages" in the game, to refer to the goodie huts that your scouts and warriors collect at the start of the game.

We can call the entities who don't settle cities as nomadic civilization.
If the game used the world tribe before don't mean it should continue using it.
But still, tribe still better than barbarian. But nomadic civilization should be the best name to them.

 

[Saxo Grammaticus]

wrong! the huns, francs, visigoths, are people from east mongolia, russia, therefore not european or not mediterranean people https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huns https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visigoths https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vandals

My comments were not directed at the origins of each group as much as at how they appeared together as a list. Aside from the Kazakhs, as mentioned before, the groups you listed could all be interpreted through a Greek/Roman/Byzantine or generally European lens.

I mean I'd also expect if they give them historical names then the Xiongnu, Manchu, Uyghurs, Yakuts, Ainu, Lakota, Shawnee, Guarini, Tupi etc. would possibly appear too, if they don't become full fledged civilizations.

Either way whether they stick with historical names, or those similar to the barbarian clans mode, I'd just simply call them "tribes", which all could start out as nomadic and then some eventually live in settlements, which then could develop further into city-states depending on how hostile or aggressive they are.

Great. I would definitely prefer a neutral/hostile/friendly tribe system that would be open to groups excluded from the civilization/city-state division and allow for evolution into city-states, for instance. I am tentatively using "tribes" but would probably even accept the utterly flavorless "peoples."

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

We can call the entities who don't settle cities as nomadic civilization.
If the game used the world tribe before don't mean it should continue using it.
But still, tribe still better than barbarian. But nomadic civilization should be the best name to them.

What about the groups of people who aren't nomadic, but live in smaller settlements instead of large cities?

 

[luca 83]

But then what does it matter, maps are self-generated, so the Greeks, meet the Aztecs, the Chinese, the Americans, the Turks, the Sumerians? But it is the African, Asian and American populations that can be considered barbaric or semi-barbaric in Latin America, the Amazonian populations, the Indian tribes of North America, the Tuareg and Berbers in Africa, where is the problem?

 

[Henri Christophe]

What about the groups of people who aren't nomadic, but live in smaller settlements instead of large cities?

If the nomadic civilization settle a city it should become a city state.

But then what does it matter, maps are self-generated, so the Greeks, meet the Aztecs, the Chinese, the Americans, the Turks, the Sumerians? But it is the African, Asian and American populations that can be considered barbaric or semi-barbaric in Latin America, the Amazonian populations, the Indian tribes of North America, the Tuareg and Berbers in Africa, where is the problem?

I think the diversity of barbarians is the minimun requisit to do it, what is problematic is the barbarians have names. Even tribe be a better option than barbarics, but still a bad word.

 

[Saxo Grammaticus]

Interchanging the terms tribal, nomadic, and pastoral seems to risk conflating the knowns and unknowns of human history. A conservative term would acknowledge that people lived in a given, likely dynamic area. The benefit of a bland shift in that direction is it opens the category up to many groups that do not fall under the charged term "barbarian."

But then what does it matter, maps are self-generated, so the Greeks, meet the Aztecs, the Chinese, the Americans, the Turks, the Sumerians? But it is the African, Asian and American populations that can be considered barbaric or semi-barbaric in Latin America, the Amazonian populations, the Indian tribes of North America, the Tuareg and Berbers in Africa, where is the problem?

Happily, I believe the four of us can all agree that named "tribes" would have to reflect a greater diversity than the term "barbarian," all the more for your point that a generated map re-centers the concept.

 

[luca 83]

Interchanging the terms tribal, nomadic, and pastoral seems to risk conflating the knowns and unknowns of human history. A conservative term would acknowledge that people lived in a given, likely dynamic area. The benefit of a bland shift in that direction is it opens the category up to many groups that do not fall under the charged term "barbarian."

BARBARIAN OR PRIMITIVE TRIBE EXPRESSES THE SAME CONCEPT TECHNOLOGICALLY AND CULTURALLY BACKWARD TRIBES, HOWEVER WHY DON'T WE TALK ABOUT THE DYNAMICS OF THE GAME INSTEAD OF INSISTING ON POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WHICH IS THE BANE OF OUR SOCIETY?

Happily, I believe the four of us can all agree that named "tribes" would have to reflect a greater diversity than the term "barbarian," all the more for your point that a generated map re-centers the concept.

 

[Saxo Grammaticus]

BARBARIAN OR PRIMITIVE TRIBE EXPRESSES THE SAME CONCEPT TECHNOLOGICALLY AND CULTURALLY BACKWARD TRIBES, HOWEVER WHY DON'T WE TALK ABOUT THE DYNAMICS OF THE GAME INSTEAD OF INSISTING ON POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WHICH IS THE BANE OF OUR SOCIETY?

It is not a matter of political correctness for me as much as accuracy and utility. I do not have a background in history, so when I read academic accounts, I learn that the popular usage of the terms I mention above do not do justice in generalizing human history. As for gameplay, well, I think breaking open the category of "barbarians" as likewise mentioned above offers interesting possibilities for developing the rest of the map.

An alternative to representing "decentralized peoples" has come up in the Victoria 3 dev diaries (#33), to which my attention returned after Krajzen brought them up in another thread. The whole entry is interesting to read, but this paragraph in particular struck me as possibly informing Civilization's own development:

In Victoria 3, decentralized nations exist to address both the issues of gameplay and better representation of indigenous peoples. No matter where an empire tries to colonize, someone already lives there. They're organized, although they don't have the same level of international recognition and administrative organization as, say, Congress of Vienna attendees.

While Victoria 3 takes place largely in the industrial era, the concept that people already inhabit the map (largely in non-urban configurations) could apply from the very first turn of a game of Civilization. This would go especially well with some discussion in dag's religion thread of the very early game.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

. . . the concept that people already inhabit the map (largely in non-urban configurations) could apply from the very first turn of a game of Civilization. This would go especially well with some discussion in dag's religion thread of the very early game.

The only thing I would change is that I would change "could apply from the very first turn-" to "SHOULD apply from the very first turn-"

Whether you start Civ VII at the traditional 4000 BCE start date or use an earlier start, in either case there are people everywhere on the globe in all types of biomes and terrains except arctic ice sheets, and even those get visited by sea hunting peoples from North America to Asia.

And I've posted European examples before, so here's some short lists of Asian (Indian sub-continent) and North American (Pacific Northwest) Tribal names that could be used in the game:
Janapadaas
Mahajanapadas
Kanva
Mahameghavna
Kuninda
Kalabhras
Vishnukundina
Huna
Harsha
Hoysala

Eyak
Haisla
Heiltsuk
Lekwiltok
Ooweekeno
Alsean
Clatskanie
Kalapuyan
Kwalhioqua
Siuslawans
Kalispel
Lillooet
Nicola
Sanpoil
Shushwap

There is no excuse for not having the map covered from the start by Tribes who can be nomadic or in small settlements exploiting land, river, and coastal resources: the Jomon were living in fixed settlements from before 10,000 BCE, while groups in both Korea and Scandinavia were even hunting whales from boats by 6000 BCE The starting map should be teaming with Less Than Civilization-sized groups with which to interact: some hostile (current 'barbarian' mode), some friendly (current 'tribal huts' but Permanent) and some Neutral who could go either way if you botch the First Contact or later contacts.

 

[luca 83]

I SUGGEST PUTTING MORE NATIONAL EVENTS SUCH AS DYNASTIES, MARRIAGES, REVOLTS, SECESSIONS, NON-PILOTED REVOLUTIONS. SOVEREIGN KILLINGS, FAMINES, COUPS D'ÉTAT.

 

[BuchiTaton]

Barbarians: Is a big NO if the game would use real historical names for them.
Tribes: Many people dont care about it but could be offensive for some.
Peoples: It could work but it is kind of evocative of the ethnic aspect.
Nations: Used by all kind of human social groups (from chieftain confederations to modern states) with a more cultural than ethnic weight.

Like said before, both City-States and Barbarian-Clans could merge in these non-playable Nations starting with Settlements that can turn in Cities, grouped by themes and their kind of conduct, environmental preference and bonus provided. For example:
- Early Agrarians (Harappans and Olmecs)
- Steppe Horselords (Scythians and Huns)
- Desert Travelers (Tuaregs and Somalis)
- Sea Traders (Malays and Tamils)
- Taiga Dwellers (Tungus and Ugrians)
- Island Raiders (Caribs and Dayaks)
- Highland Defenders (Miao and Chibchas)

 

[Saxo Grammaticus]

I SUGGEST PUTTING MORE NATIONAL EVENTS SUCH AS DYNASTIES, MARRIAGES, REVOLTS, SECESSIONS, NON-PILOTED REVOLUTIONS. SOVEREIGN KILLINGS, FAMINES, COUPS D'ÉTAT.

Many of these suggestions would fit in with Boris' Role Playing thread. Personally, I would not want famine depicted in-game, due to its association with mass human suffering, though I am open to how food surpluses or the lack thereof would interact with systems like amenities or stability.

 

[luca 83]

Many of these suggestions would fit in with Boris' Role Playing thread. Personally, I would not want famine depicted in-game, due to its association with mass human suffering, though I am open to how food surpluses or the lack thereof would interact with systems like amenities or stability.

then even the war should not be simulated! and the history everything must be simulated peace, war, famine, civil war, epidemics, natural disasters everything affects the history and nations, even racism and discrimination and genocide

 

[Henri Christophe]

then even the war should not be simulated! and the history everything must be simulated peace, war, famine, civil war, epidemics, natural disasters everything affects the history and nations, even racism and discrimination and genocide

Just imagine do a genocide playable, how terrible it should be.
War okays to be playable, but somes issues of human life as genocide isn't playable at all

 

[Saxo Grammaticus]

then even the war should not be simulated! and the history everything must be simulated peace, war, famine, civil war, epidemics, natural disasters everything affects the history and nations, even racism and discrimination and genocide

I think it is a totally fair question whether and to what extent war ought to be included in Civilization; however, I am aware many people enjoy that dimension of the game and would desire a more competent AI partly in hopes of a more challenging experience there. I myself occasionally enjoy combat in games.

It is not abundantly clear to me how people would enjoy famine, epidemics, racism, discrimination, and genocide in-game, or what meaning players would derive from them. I do recall some epidemic component to Rhye's and Fall that seemed well-integrated.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Personally, I would not want famine depicted in-game, due to its association with mass human suffering, though I am open to how food surpluses or the lack thereof would interact with systems like amenities or stability.

I feel like famine is already kind of in the game considering certain tiles can experience drought. I would maybe go as far to make it to where if tiles encounter enough droughts they could undergo desertification and turn into desert tiles.

It is not abundantly clear to me how people would enjoy famine, epidemics, racism, discrimination, and genocide in-game, or what meaning players would derive from them. I do recall some epidemic component to Rhye's and Fall that seemed well-integrated.

I would have loved to see epidemics in the game, but can understand why some people wouldn't due to recent events.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

I feel like famine is already kind of in the game considering certain tiles can experience drought. I would maybe go as far to make it to where if tiles encounter enough droughts they could undergo desertification and turn into desert tiles.

Drought, flood, local 'climate change' and such causing crop failure and food loss (i.e., Famine) were the most common reasons for cities to be abandoned in the early Neolithic, so at that point 'famine' is quite literally catastrophic for your game. Later, events like the Mini Ice Age of the 16th - 17th century which caused nearly world-wide crop failures resulted in massive political disruption as well - Geoffrey Parker wrote a massive book on the subject, and it is a catalogue of disasters for governments, like beheading or assassinating your ruler, which happened in places as different as England and the Ottoman Empire.

Which means that 'famine' as a mechanic in the game has to be very carefully considered or it simply becomes a quick way to lose the game entirely!

I would have loved to see epidemics in the game, but can understand why some people wouldn't due to recent events.

The bigger problem, IMHO, is that epidemics were either utterly catastrophic or nearly constant.
In Classical/Imperial Rome, the city we probably have the most information on from all the surviving Roman records, they had a major epidemic hit on average of 5 - 6 times a century. In game terms, that's Every Single Turn, which means that Ancient/Classical Epidemics are simply the Normal State, acting as a constant 'drag' on your population increase.
Except when they become Pandemics, like the Antonine Plague of 165 - 180 CE, the Plague of Cyprian of 249 - 262 CE, or the Plague of Justinian 541 - 545 CE: each of them killed off between 25 - 40% of the population of the Roman Empire, and the last also ravaged the middle east all the way to India. The first two, striking less than a century apart, may have reduced the population of the Empire by almost 1/2 between them, and they definitely caused a manpower crisis for the Roman Army, which quite simply ran out of recruits in the third century CE.
And unfortunately, as a game mechanic ancient, classical, medieval or Early Modern Plague both have the potential to cripple your Civ but also, historically, there ain't a thing you can do about it until Pasteur comes up with Germ
Theory. That makes Plague/Epidemic a completely negative addition to the game, and those rarely make any potential gamer/customer very happy.