The Big Ideas for Civ VII: Cultures, Citizens, and Counsels

[TheSpaceCowboy]

Civilization V had Hexes and One Unit Per Tile. Civilization VI had Districts. My proposal for the Big Idea to innovate Civilization VII is Cultures, Citizens, and Counsels. This would expand the scope of the game at levels both above and below that of your civilization. Over the next few posts I’ll elaborate on my ideas for the mechanics, but I’ll give here a brief overview of the core concept of each.

Just as cities belong to civilizations, civilizations belong to Cultures. You’re still playing as a civilization, not a Culture. You share a Culture with several other civilizations in the game.

Culture

At their heart, Cultures are all about asymmetry and flavor. Playing two different civilizations from the same Culture would be about as different as playing two different civilizations from Civ VI. But playing as civilizations from different Cultures would almost be like playing two different 4X strategy games altogether. The goal is not just varied gameplay, but for the distinct flavors of the civilizations in actual history to be more evident.

Each Culture will have a unique:

• Ability
• Unit
• Building/District/Improvement
• Great Persons list
• Wonder
• Hero
• Spy
• Tech Tree
• And means of making technological progress

These are all in addition to the unique Leader Abilities, Civilization Abilities, Units, and Buildings/Districts/Improvements of each civilization.

With respect to the singular Hero and Wonder, civilizations of the same Culture would be competing to produce each. They’d also be competing to assimilate Tribes and Nations (replacing Barbarians and City-States, respectively) that belong to the same Culture. Tribes that belong to the same Culture as the player would act like Barbarians in New Frontier, in that they can be dealt with diplomatically. Tribes from a different Culture will always be hostile to the player.

Sharing a Culture benefits relations between groups. Envoys sent to Nations of the same Culture are more effective than to ones of a foreign Culture. After conquering a city of a different civilization or Nation, it is easier to assimilate the Citizens of the same Culture than a different one. Loyalty pressure is greater on cities whose Citizens belong to your Culture and lesser on those of different ones.

Each Culture has a defining idea that radically differentiates them from other Cultures. For example:

• Amerindians - They start on the New World continent(s) isolated from the other Cultures.
• Colonial - They cannot be chosen at the start of a Standard game. Only once an Old World Culture has three cities on the New World continent(s) can they choose to abandon their original civilization and play as a Colonial
• Occidental - They’re the standard, vanilla way of playing the game, most similar to past versions of Civilization
• Oriental - They’re isolationists with huge buffs inside their territory and huge debuffs outside of it. They cannot have international trade routes until the Industrial Era.

Citizens

Each and every Citizen is an individual. Your population, instead of being a mere quantity, is all of these individuals, each with their own religious and political beliefs, and their own strengths, and weaknesses.

Every time a City, Nation, or Tribe gains a population point, a new Citizen is randomly generated. This individual will have a numeric value for skills in the following categories:

• Creativity
• Enterprising
• Intelligence
• Fitness
• Productivity
• Zeal

These relate to the Citizen’s aptitude at Culture, Money Making, Scientific Research, Warfare, Building, and Faith, respectively. Each time a Citizen is produced, they can do one of four things:

• Improve a Tile - Good for Citizens with low skills, building Farms, Pastures, etc.
• Construct a Building/District - The Citizen will work in the Building once it's constructed. A Citizen with high Productivity but low Zeal will take fewer turns to build a Temple, but that Temple will produce less Faith or Great Prophet points. A Citizen with low Productivity but high Zeal will take longer to construct a Temple, but it will produce more Faith and Great Prophet points.
• Military Duty - Good for Citizens with high Fitness. You select a specialization such as Warrior or Archer, and the Citizen becomes that unit after several turns of training. More advanced military specializations require resources such as Iron or Oil, in addition to the Citizen
• Specialize - Becomes a Trader, Missionary, Rock Band, etc. Restrictions apply to some specializations.

The Cities themselves no longer have production queues. Each Citizen takes a number of turns to build his Building or learn his specialization, and this can happen simultaneously if the Citizens have generally low Production skills and the City is growing quickly in population.

Citizens can also be born with rare traits. One with a Green Thumb might produce more food on a farm, while one that’s a Tactician might have a greater combat buff on advantageous terrain.

Certain buildings can make Citizens born in that city have better skills in a certain category. A campus with a Liberal Arts College would give all new Citizens of the city a higher Creativity, whereas a Military Academy would improve Fitness. The new Campus District (no longer the Science District) would have an Elementary School and High School that improve all scores, and one of the following tier three buildings:

• A&M - Farming and Mining traits
• Business School - Enterprising
• Institute of Technology - Intelligence
• Liberal Arts College - Creativity
• Military Academy - Fitness
• Seminary - Zeal
• Vocational - Productivity

When a civilization has acquired enough Great Person points, the next city to increase in population will not receive a random Citizen, but rather a predetermined Great Person from their Culture’s list. Even after retiring a Great Person remains a part of the city’s population.

Though Citizens cannot be moved around, in addition to their job, they can also be appointed to a position in their government’s Counsel.

Counsel

Instead of filling policy cards, Governments are now differentiated by how many members of their ruling Counsels there are and what job functions they have. These Counsels are very similar to those found in Crusader Kings III, except for the fact that everyone is more or less immortal.

For the earliest government of Chiefdom, the only Counsel member is the Leader. Early governments like an Ancient Republic or a Monarchy might only have one spot on their Counsel, consul or spouse, respectively (yes, your Leader can get married, but not have children), but these would have different functions. A consul might have the options to Lobby for Legislation (reducing the cost of a certain Civic) or Drum Up War Support (gaining a casus belli and temporary combat bonus) whereas a spouse might have the option to Appease the People (lowering the penalty for low Amenities) or Provide Moral Support (giving the Leader a bonus to his stats).

A late game government like a Democratic Republic would have the Leader, Vice President, Speaker of the House, Chief Justice, and a whole slew of Cabinet Secretaries. A retired Great General would have stats that make him a particularly good choice for Secretary of Defense, whereas a Great Engineer would make a better Secretary of Labor, but either could fill any position.

There is now a new currency called Political Capital that is used to purchase Policies. Depending on the Government, some policies cost more Political Capital than others. In a Democratic Republic, it costs more Political Capital to enact Censorship than Free Speech. Governments also have different means of generating Political Capital. In a Democratic Republic, every Citizen with a positive approval rating of the Leader generates Political Capital. For a Fascist government, Political Capital might be gained by a combination of Soldiers’ approval and through conquest.

 

[Haig]

I also have been thinking about citizen concept like you but not as detailed, good job.

I think city would also show it's ethnicity like
Paris:
75% French
19% Russian
6% Greek
Depending which cultures neighbor it and influence it.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Basic Problem with your concept: Culture is not Static. It derives from a set of adaptations by human groups to their environment, and it changes - sometimes dramatically - as the environment, including their human neighbors, change.
Citizens will start with a Culture. And if they migrated in, it may be all or in part different from the 'parent' culture of the Civ. And if there are enough of them, they will start to change the 'parent' culture. Again, none of your proposed concepts an be Static in the scope of the game. The attributes and Buildings to change the attributes of your Citizens are also too static and limited: most of them, in fact, didn't start as institutions until the Industrial Era and for much of (European) history, some of them were religious-based: the early Universities all taught 'liberal arts" only within the context of the Church, for instance, and that has certainly changed completely in the past 400 years!

Your examples of 'Cultures' are both too broad, each encompassing a multitude of actual language and cultural distinctions and in the broad characteristics you imply for them, are both inaccurate and slightly Racist - 'Orientals" had international, long-range Trade Routes as far back as the Classical Era, unless you assume that everything east of the Ukraine and Byzantium is 'Oriental'. And to give them 'debuffs' outside of their territory - that will come as a great relief to anyone who ran into a Mongolian Tuman in the 13th century in Syria, Russia, or Hungary and got slaughtered by them. Also, you again run into the problem of the Static Nature of your proposed design - Europeans virtually all migrated into Europe from the Neolithic Era on from either Central Asa or the Middle East, many of the early Mesopotamian cultures/societies were in fact migrants from Central Asia (notably, Hitittes and Assyrians). So, do you expect to base your 'Culture' definition on where they started or where they ended up? And when, and under what influences . . .

Finally, there is a conceptual problem. On the one hand, we are talking (presumably, unless Civ VII is a far more radical departure from the general Civ games than expected) about a 4x game covering 6000 years or more of semi-history. To cover that, and on the other hand be worried about the size and individual attributes of the council of advisors to the leader or the physical fitness and literacy of individual Citizens is just too much of a stretch. It reads like an absolute Horror Show of micro-management.

 

[TheSpaceCowboy]

Basic Problem with your concept: Culture is not Static...

As I explained in the initial post, the primary impetus for introducing my idea of Culture is Asymmetric Gameplay. I make no effort for it to be historically accurate or a precise translation of the actual concept of culture into a historical simulation. It's just more ways to make each playthrough unique, similar to how Civilization VI added Leader Abilities.

Your examples of 'Cultures' are both too broad, each encompassing a multitude of actual language and cultural distinctions and in the broad characteristics you imply for them, are both inaccurate and slightly Racist...

Given that "racist" is one of the worst possible accusation that can be leveled at an individual in our society, to level that charge absent any real evidence is libelous. "Oriental" is a very useful word, one narrower and more precise than its nearest equivalents of Eastern or Asian. "Far Eastern" would work as well, but Oriental has better euphony and is of Latin derivation. The term arises from the fact that early map-makers used to orient their maps towards the east at the top instead of the north, given that Jerusalem was to the east. And it pairs well with the opposing term Occidental. There's no reason to discard a rich word like Oriental just because some linguistic bullies try to play musical chairs with our terminology every few years in order to push their own political and ideological agendas. The same kinds of individuals who would probable take offence to so innocuous a term as Oriental regularly and unapologetically spout nonsensical neologisms that I and many others find far more offensive.

Finally, there is a conceptual problem. On the one hand, we are talking (presumably, unless Civ VII is a far more radical departure from the general Civ games than expected) about a 4x game covering 6000 years or more of semi-history. To cover that, and on the other hand be worried about the size and individual attributes of the council of advisors to the leader or the physical fitness and literacy of individual Citizens is just too much of a stretch. It reads like an absolute Horror Show of micro-management.

That is definitely a legitimate worry. Governors already were a bit too tedious, but this was meant to potentially simplify that system by combining it with the Civics Card system. Crusader Kings managed to make the management of its councils work, which inspired hope for my idea. But not being a game designer, maybe it really would prove too tedious. I honestly don't know.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

As I explained in the initial post, the primary impetus for introducing my idea of Culture is Asymmetric Gameplay. I make no effort for it to be historically accurate or a precise translation of the actual concept of culture into a historical simulation. It's just more ways to make each playthrough unique, similar to how Civilization VI added Leader Abilities.

And my point, which I obviously failed to make, is that the Asymmetries are not Fixed, they change over time and conditions for each Civ/Faction/Group. The English had no particular affinity for the ocean (Naval Bias) for centuries after they settled in England: they started to develop one in response to continuous (Norse) threats from the sea. There are some very specific cultural 'attributes' that would probably have to be hard coded from one end of the game to the other, simply because the causation fo them is too complex to reproduce in any game, but they would have to be very, very carefully examined, because most such 'biases' turn out to have specific reasons for them that can be modeled as Game Conditions.

Given that "racist" is one of the worst possible accusation that can be leveled at an individual in our society, to level that charge absent any real evidence is libelous. "Oriental" is a very useful word, one narrower and more precise than its nearest equivalents of Eastern or Asian. "Far Eastern" would work as well, but Oriental has better euphony and is of Latin derivation. The term arises from the fact that early map-makers used to orient their maps towards the east at the top instead of the north, given that Jerusalem was to the east. And it pairs well with the opposing term Occidental. There's no reason to discard a rich word like Oriental just because some linguistic bullies try to play musical chairs with our terminology every few years in order to push their own political and ideological agendas. The same kinds of individuals who would probable take offence to so innocuous a term as Oriental regularly and unapologetically spout nonsensical neologisms that I and many others find far more offensive.

I have no objection to Oriental or Occidental as descriptors. What is objectionable and Inaccurate is to describe "Orientals" as - "isolationists with huge buffs inside their territory and huge debuffs outside of it. They cannot have international trade routes until the Industrial Era". To put it bluntly, that's Historical B******t and grossly inaccurate as a description. When it is contrasted with Occidental as - "the standard, vanilla way of playing the game" then, yes, it
does produce a whiff of the R-word. I note that Amerindians are also described as starting on the New World and isolated, but, for example, Humankind's nominal Start Date is 15,000 BCE, at which time the Amerindians were still Siberians and not "Amer-" or particularly isolated yet. And until the Camel was domesticated as a beast of burden, the West African and East African kingdoms were almost as isolated from the rest of Eurasia as the Americas. What you are describing as "Cultural Definers" are not, they are at best temporary characteristics of some parts of fhe cultures, nothing more.

That is definitely a legitimate worry. Governors already were a bit too tedious, but this was meant to potentially simplify that system by combining it with the Civics Card system. Crusader Kings managed to make the management of its councils work, which inspired hope for my idea. But not being a game designer, maybe it really would prove too tedious. I honestly don't know.

I am all for making governance of your Civ more variable, which dividing, say, the characteristics of the Leader and the capability of the government to enact, amplify or stifle his/the Player's desires could be separate things and subject to numerous different combinations. On the other hand, there is a line (which I suspect my suggestions sprawl across more often than not) beyond which the game becomes to tedious and 'fiddly' for many players. There is a large portion of the gaming public that wants to point and click and have something happen, not just start an argument with the Game Engine as to what he can make it do . . .

 

[Zaarin]

many of the early Mesopotamian cultures/societies were in fact migrants from Central Asia (notably, Hitittes and Assyrians).

While your point stands, most Semiticists place the origin of Semitic-speaking peoples along the coast of the Red Sea, though there's no consensus as to whether that means Yemen or Ethiopia (though the latter has some compelling arguments for it, most notably the incredible diversity of Ethiosemitic languages). Either way, the Akkadian-speaking peoples of Mesopotamia were newcomers, and for that matter so were the Sumerians, as many important Ubaid Culture settlements that became major Sumerian cities have non-Sumerian names. That means the Sumerians were not the descendants of the Ubaid Culture and came from elsewhere, and given the geography "elsewhere" almost certainly means either the Caucasus/Anatolia or, more likely, Central Asia.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

While your point stands, most Semiticists place the origin of Semitic-speaking peoples along the coast of the Red Sea, though there's no consensus as to whether that means Yemen or Ethiopia (though the latter has some compelling arguments for it, most notably the incredible diversity of Ethiosemitic languages). Either way, the Akkadian-speaking peoples of Mesopotamia were newcomers, and for that matter so were the Sumerians, as many important Ubaid Culture settlements that became major Sumerian cities have non-Sumerian names. That means the Sumerians were not the descendants of the Ubaid Culture and came from elsewhere, and given the geography "elsewhere" almost certainly means either the Caucasus/Anatolia or, more likely, Central Asia.

If there is a single rule for early people, it seems to be that Everybody Moved. Even such 'stay-at-homes' as the Egyptians included people that moved into the Nile valley when the Sahara savannah began to dry up around 3900 BCE, the Sumerian, Akkadian, Hittite, Assyrian, Mitanni all 'arrived' in Mesopotamia/Anatolia from elsewhere, everybody in Europe came from somewhere else (except for a couple of pockets of older DNA in places like Sardinia and northern Spain).
I am more and more convinced that the Civ model of starting by settling a city is Dead Wrong: absolutely no body started where they first settled, and something like the "Neolithic Start" in Humankind is a requirement for Civ VII: but done better, with more variety of choices as to how you develop before you start Citying.

 

[TheSpaceCowboy]

Science

Instead of only Science and Eurekas, there will be multiple means of researching Techs on the Tech Tree, with each Culture strong in one and weak in another. These include:

• Contact: Each time a Civilization sees another using a Technology it has not yet Discovered (e.g. Spanish musketmen being in sight range of Aztecs who had not yet discovered Gunpowder), the first Civilization has a chance to automatically Discover the Tech. The chance percentage would depend in large part as to what Era the Tech is from.
• Discovery: Some Techs cannot be unlocked without first satisfying a certain condition. For example, an early naval Tech such as Sailing might require construction of either a City on a coast or a Harbor.
• Era: The Science put towards a Tech via Eurekas, Great Scientists, Research, or Trade would be the standard amount for Techs of the current Era, but about +25% greater per era for Techs from earlier Eras, and about -25% less per ara for Techs from future Eras.
• Eurekas: These apply to all Techs, even those that are unlocked by a Discovery. For those that require multiple items, sometimes each item contributes to the research. For example, Sailing might require two Fishing Boats, but each Boat built would advance the Research 20% or so. Even after completing the Research for Sailing via Eurekas and other means it would still need to be Discovered to be unlocked.
• Great Scientists: Same as in Civ VI, but now retired Scientists can join your Council
• Research: Initially, research along the Tech Tree would be limited to one Tech at a time, and throttled by a trickle of Science, requiring Eurekas and Great Scientists to speed up advances. However, once the Research Center district comes online (much later than Civ VI’s Campus), each Research Center can be dedicated to its own Tech, greatly speeding this process.
• Trade: Anytime two Civilizations share a trade route, a very small percent of progress will be made each turn toward every Tech that one has Researched but the other has not yet.

Moreover, each Culture would get a unique Tech Tree. While most of the Techs are shared, some would be unique to certain Cultures, others would come later or earlier on the tree, some would have different conditions to Discover or gain a Eureka, and some would cost more or less Science.

• African - Contact guarantees Discovery and a Eureka towards Techs, but they don’t gain Eurekas otherwise. Their Research center district comes online even later, but Desert and Jungle tiles yield Science
• Amerindian - Their Tech Tree ends at the Classical Era, but Contact guarantees Discovery and a Eureka towards Techs, and they gain much more Science towards Techs via Trade
• Colonial - They start with the Tech Tree of their parent Civilization, including all of the Discoveries, Eurekas, and researched Techs. Research Center districts built on New World continents generate more Science, and they have less penalty for researching technologies from later Eras.
• Mediterranean - They have a larger pool of early Great Scientists than other Cultures, and gain Great Scientist points more readily. Their Great Scientists have stronger effects, and especially high Intelligence scores for subsequently serving on Councils. They have a much smaller pool of Great Scientists in the later Eras.
• Middle-Eastern - They get a huge boost to Researching Technologies from the earliest Era. This drops with each subsequent Era, reaching equilibrium in the middlemost Eras and becoming a penalty to Research in the later Eras.
• Occidental - They don’t benefit from Contact with more advanced civilizations. They can fulfill the Eureka requirements for a Tech an unlimited number of times (e.g. if building a Fishing Boat nets 20% of the Research cost of Sailing, building five Boats would net 100% of the cost, instead of being capped at 40%).
• Oriental - All technologies are automatically unlocked without any need for Discovery. Many Technologies come earlier on the Tech Tree for them. International Trade routes do not progress Research of Technologies for either trading partner.

 

[TheSpaceCowboy]

Revised after some feedback on a different thread...

Color code of Cultures:
African
Amerindian
Colonial
Eastern
Mediterranean
Mesoamerican
Middle-Eastern
Northern
Occidental
Oriental
Subcontinental

Civilization VII: “Novus Ordo Seclorum”
Base Game

1. America - Thomas Jefferson & Dwight D. Eisenhower
2. Apache - Geronimo
3. Babylon - Hammurabi
4. China - Chiang Chung-cheng
5. Egypt - Nefertiti
6. England - Henry VII
7. France - Louis IX or Charles de Gaulle
8. Germany - Kaiser Wilhelm II
9. Gran Colombia - Simón Bolívar
10. Greece - Cleisthenes
11. India - Gandhi
12. Italy - Cosimo de' Medici
13. Japan - Meiji
14. Judea - Judas Maccabeus
15. Maya - Cauac Sky
16. Russia - Khrushchev
17. Spain - Isabella
18. Swedes - Ragnar Lodbrok

Pre-order Bonus:

1. Persia - Cyrus

DLC I: “Ab Æterno”
Focusing on Ancient Civilizations

1. Assyria - Tiglath-Pileser III
2. Brits - Boudica & Leir
3. Carthage - Hannibal
4. Danes - Hroðgar
5. Rome - Cincinnatus & Lucius Junius Brutus

Expansion I: “Annuit Cœptis”
Focusing on Religion

1. Anglo Saxons - Alfred the Great
2. Arabia - Harun al-Rashid
3. Byzantium - Julian the Apostate & Alexios I Komnenos
4. Ethiopia - Haile Selassie
5. Holy Romans - Charlemagne
6. Ottomans - Mehmed II
7. Outremer - Godfrey of Bouillon
8. Papal States - Urban II or Innocent III
9. Tibet - a Dali Lama

Expansion Pack II: “Terra Incognita”
Focusing on Colonization

1. Argentina – Eva Peron
2. Aztec - Montezuma
3. Brazil - Pedro II
4. Inca - Pachacuti
5. México - Hernán Cortés
6. Polynesia - Liliʻuokalani
7. Powhatan - Pocahontas
8. Shoshone - Sacagawea
9. Sioux - Sitting Bull & Crazy Horse

DLC II: “Ex Oriente Lux”
Focusing on Eastern and Subcontinental Cultures

1. Huns - Etzel
2. Indochina - Lady Triệu
3. Kiev Rus - Rurik or Volodymyr I
4. Mongols - Genghis & Kublai Khan
5. Siam - Ramkhamhaeng

Expansion III: “Plus Ultra”
Focusing on exploration and minor factions

1. Austria - Charles V
2. Belgium - Leopold II
3. Britain - Elizabeth & Victoria
4. Dutch - William of Orange
5. Korea - Sejong
6. Mali - Mansa Musa
7. Portugal - Henry the Navigator
8. Switzerland - Huldrych Zwingli
9. Zulu - Shaka

 

[bene_legionary]

China - Chiang Chung-cheng

Game wouldn't sell in China, that's for sure. Definitely not in Taiwan. It's the Chinese equivalent of adding Hitler, really, he's super controversial and did a lot of bad stuff. He might have united all of China, but that didn't stop him from being a horrible dictator (especially on the Taiwanese side of the strait). If you really want a 20th century Chinese leader add Sun Yat-sen, at least both sides of the strait agree that he was a pretty swell guy if you look over the wrinkles. Otherwise think of someone else, but not Chiang Kai-shek.

I haven't read most of your ideas, but I like the first part of your tech researching ideas, however the cultural research bonuses don't match well with the Civ series. I doubt Firaxis would ever classify civs based on their location in the real world, but I wouldn't mind it being a mod like Sui Generis.

 

[TheSpaceCowboy]

Game wouldn't sell in China, that's for sure. Definitely not in Taiwan. It's the Chinese equivalent of adding Hitler, really, he's super controversial and did a lot of bad stuff. He might have united all of China, but that didn't stop him from being a horrible dictator (especially on the Taiwanese side of the strait). If you really want a 20th century Chinese leader add Sun Yat-sen, at least both sides of the strait agree that he was a pretty swell guy if you look over the wrinkles. Otherwise think of someone else, but not Chiang Kai-shek.

The game not being sold in the mainland precisely is the idea. Such would prevent Firaxis from having to make all sorts of artistic compromises to appease the Communist Party censors. No American company should ever sell their freedom of speech in exchange for all the Yuan in the world.

Ideally I'd want a Taiwanese leader who also held authority on the mainland. Do you have any suggestions as to who a better candidate that meets that criteria would be? My worry is that any Chinese ruler pre-Taiwan has been or would be co-opted by the CCP as part of their history.

 

[bene_legionary]

With a franchise as large as Civilisation it'd be very unlikely to happen given today's out-of-control political climate (a good example of exactly that is you wanting to spite the mainland- there are better ways to do that, for example avoiding Chinese-made products and buying local products). I'd imagine that having Chiang would insult everybody but the most fervent pro-reunification supporters, which actually could include the CCP. It would take away from Civilisation as a game, which seems to be counter-productive to your goals, no?

The Qing held loose and rebellious power over Taiwan before Japan captured it in the late 19th century, while the Ming did have some control after the Dutch and Spanish had it, but only after being invaded by the Qing. Sun Yat-sen is better respected on both sides of the strait but held little power even when he was provisional president in the first Republic. He'd be like a Gandhi sort of figure. Otherwise you'd be better off making Taipei a Japanese city. Maybe it'd be less controversial than adding Chiang in Taiwan, but it would certainly make the CCP mad, if that's your goal. Easier to go with Sun Yat-sen.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

The game not being sold in the mainland precisely is the idea. Such would prevent Firaxis from having to make all sorts of artistic compromises to appease the Communist Party censors. No American company should ever sell their freedom of speech in exchange for all the Yuan in the world.

Why prove a point by making a game unable to be purchased by citizens in a particular country that would want to play the game? No matter how you feel on the political spectrum it's bad marketing regardless.

My worry is that any Chinese ruler pre-Taiwan has been or would be co-opted by the CCP as part of their history.

Not Kublai.

 

[Zaarin]

Not Kublai.

The PRC lowkey claims a secular equivalent of the Mandate of Heaven and therefore claims anyone who claimed the Mandate of Heaven as a predecessor, including the Yuan. They also have a general policy of "whatever has once been China has always been China and always will be China." Hence The Space Cowboy's premise is flawed as, according to the PRC, Taiwan is and always has been part of the PRC. (Obviously this is completely contrary to the political reality of the situation, but no propagandist ever let that get in the way of a good story.)

Why prove a point by making a game unable to be purchased by citizens in a particular country that would want to play the game? No matter how you feel on the political spectrum it's bad marketing regardless.

Not just bad marketing but why punish the Chinese people for their government? Not to mention that no Chinese leader the PRC would object to would actually be a good leader for China anyway.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

The PRC lowkey claims a secular equivalent of the Mandate of Heaven and therefore claims anyone who claimed the Mandate of Heaven as a predecessor, including the Yuan. They also have a general policy of "whatever has once been China has always been China and always will be China."

I thought there was some censoring of Genghis Khan recently, so I wasn't quite sure if that extended to Kublai or not.

Not just bad marketing but why punish the Chinese people for their government? Not to mention that no Chinese leader the PRC would object to would actually be a good leader for China anyway.

Yes I meant bad by not marketing it to the general population of China. I doubt Xi plays Civ at all, so why punish everyone else?

 

[Zaarin]

I thought there was some censoring of Genghis Khan recently, so I wasn't quite sure if that extended to Kublai or not.

I don't keep up with the Chinese censorship machine myself, but it would make much more sense for them to censor Genghis Khan, who was technically never huangdi, than to censor Kublai, who was. Well, insofar as anything about censorship makes sense.

 

[GeneralZIft]

This idea gives me nightmares, it's way too complicated in my opinion.

 

[Saxo Grammaticus]

Sharing a Culture benefits relations between groups. Envoys sent to Nations of the same Culture are more effective than to ones of a foreign Culture. After conquering a city of a different civilization or Nation, it is easier to assimilate the Citizens of the same Culture than a different one. Loyalty pressure is greater on cities whose Citizens belong to your Culture and lesser on those of different ones.

This is an interesting idea, perhaps even to simulate how certain mechanics like inter-marrying may be eased by relatively close proximity. Of course, there have also been a few cultural break-ups, and a number of multi-cultural states had an odd way of sticking around, at least before WWI.

Citizens can also be born with rare traits. One with a Green Thumb might produce more food on a farm, while one that’s a Tactician might have a greater combat buff on advantageous terrain.

This sounds like a very fun idea, but could lead to a spike in re-rolling. On the whole, individuated citizens seem like an extension of the immortal governor-leader-player chain. Not like any of us are sticking around 6,000 years later...but feel free to raise your hand if you are! I think it would be more likely for citizens to gain slightly more identity in terms of culture or religion or even socioeconomic standing, but individual traits seem unlikely.

Basic Problem with your concept: Culture is not Static. It derives from a set of adaptations by human groups to their environment, and it changes - sometimes dramatically - as the environment, including their human neighbors, change.

My deep desire would be for a highly organic, dynamic version of Civilization capable of standing up to the mid- and late-game. In the absence of such magic, I suppose I can settle for more structured flavor.

• Contact: Each time a Civilization sees another using a Technology it has not yet Discovered (e.g. Spanish musketmen being in sight range of Aztecs who had not yet discovered Gunpowder), the first Civilization has a chance to automatically Discover the Tech. The chance percentage would depend in large part as to what Era the Tech is from.

• Discovery: Some Techs cannot be unlocked without first satisfying a certain condition. For example, an early naval Tech such as Sailing might require construction of either a City on a coast or a Harbor.

...

• Trade: Anytime two Civilizations share a trade route, a very small percent of progress will be made each turn toward every Tech that one has Researched but the other has not yet.

These are the points that most stick out to me. Should Contact replace the Eureka/Inspiration mechanism, that would already probably be more interesting.

As for Discovery, I like that idea that the tech tree would allow a land empire to research into the Early Modern, where, if it so happened to come into a port of its own, like Trieste, contact will fill in the blanks through the era.

I am not so sure a trickle of progress is what would be most fun from trade. For example, the Historical Spawn Dates mod has a setting for isolated and colonial powers in which they receive an aggressive form of Peter's Great Embassy trait. In practice, this means if you colonize South America, the Inca are not only happily prospering from years of isolation, but also a kind of persistent threat if you allow them to leach a scientific/cultural advantage for an extended period. Dynamic/competitive science/culture/progress can add a lot to gameplay.

 

[TheSpaceCowboy]

Religion

The purposes of the Religion system would be:

• To create further gameplay asymmetries
• To create an additional axis for diplomatic relations
• To create additional opportunities to capture the unique flavor of civilizations

The purpose of the Religion system would NOT be:

• To simulate how faith and religion work
• To suggest one belief system to be true or others false

Religions in the game would have a similar hierarchical structure to civilizations. There’d be Faith, Denomination, Diocese, and Adherent, being the religious equivalents of Culture, Civilization, City, and Citizen, respectively.

Denominations would be the basic unit of religions. Most Civilizations would have a unique Denomination, with a very select few having no Denomination they can found (a la Kongo), multiple Denominations they can choose from, or Denominations they share with another and compete to found first. Every Denomination has a Unique Unifying Belief.

Above the level of Denominations are Faiths. Multiple Denominations can belong to the same umbrella Faith. When competing for Great Prophets with which to found their Denomination, civilizations are only competing against those other civilizations whose unique Denomination shares a common Faith with them. For example, England’s Anglicanism, Germany’s Lutheranism, and Switzerland’s Reformed, would all fall under the umbrella Faith of Protestant. They’d compete for the same Great Prophets (e.g. Martin Luther, John Calvin, and Huldrych Zwingli), and also pull from the same pool of Founder, Follower, Enhancer, Leader, and Worshiper Beliefs. Each Faith also has a singular shared Unifying Belief. For example, Folk Catholicism, the Latin Rite, Roman Catholicism, and Papism all have (a reworked) Papal Primacy.

Different Faiths would have different pools of Beliefs. Some might have a few in common, but many would be unique to each Faith. For example, the Catholic and Protestant Faiths might both have Tithes as a Founder Belief, but only Catholics would have Transubstantiation. Moreover, if the Germans select Tithes as the Founder Belief of Lutheranism, the Italians could still select Tithes as the Founder Belief of Roman Catholicism, but the English could not pick it as the Founder Belief of Anglicanism.

Below the level of Denomination is Diocese. This is essentially the same as the city in which a Denomination operates. Certain buffs and debuffs would apply to the entire Diocese, including its Holy Site, Worship buildings, Improvements, and Wonders.

Below the level of Diocese would be an Adherent. Among the stats each Citizen has is their Zeal. When missionaries work to convert Citizens, those with lower Zeal would be easier to convert, but less useful at religious tasks.

Civilizations of a shared Faith have a bonus to their diplomatic standing with one another and cannot declare Holy Wars upon one another. Though there is no more Religious Victory, Founder Beliefs now provide strong bonuses for having adherents of one’s Denomination in other civilizations.

Each Denomination has a powerful Leader Belief that can be selected by whichever Civilization has the most total Zeal among its Adherents. If another Civilization becomes the primary followers of a Denomination that they didn’t found themselves, they can spend faith to reform the Leader Belief to better suit their agenda.

Denominations in the Polytheistic Faith work slightly differently than other Faiths. They have few or no Denomination-wide Beliefs, but each Diocese is dedicated to a unique god in their pantheon with powerful bonuses for their local city. For example, a Diocese dedicated to Poseidon would be especially suited as a port city, a Diocese dedicated to Vulcan might receive immunity from volcanic eruptions, and a Diocese dedicated to Tyr would train better soldiers.

Some Denominations are the only one of their Faith. Though labeled “Other/Unaffiliated,” they do not together constitute a shared Faith. Some civilizations would not be able to found religions. Others, I’m unsure as of yet what to give them (especially since half the civs can’t all be Roman Catholic), though I’m open to suggestions.

Faiths
Catholicism
Christian
Eastern
Islam
Judaism
Orthodox
Polytheistic
Protestant
“Other/Unaffiliated”

“Civilization VII: Novus Ordo Seclorum”
Base Game

• America - Evangelical & Mormonism
• Apache - Peyotism
• Babylon - Babylonian pantheon
• China - Chinese Pantheon & Confucianism
• Egypt - Egyptian pantheon
• England - Anglicanism
• France - Laïcité
• Germany - Lutheranism
• Gran Colombia - Spanish Catholic
• Greece - Greek pantheon
• Italy - Roman Catholicism
• Japan - Shintoism
• Judea - Judaism
• Maya - Mayan Pantheon
• Persia - Shia & Zoroastrianism
• Polynesia - Polynesian pantheon
• Spain - Spanish Catholic
• Swedes - Lutheranism & Norse Pantheon

DLC I: “Ab Æterno”
Focusing on Ancient Civilizations

• Assyria - Mesopotamian pantheon
• Brits - Celtic/Insular & Roman pantheon
• Danes - Norse pantheon
• Rome - Roman pantheon

Expansion I: “Annuit Cœptis”
Focusing on Religion

• Anglo Saxons - Celtic/Insular
• Arabia - Sunni
• Byzantium - Greek Orthodox
• Ethiopia - Ethiopian Orthodox
• Holy Romans - Roman Catholic
• Ottomans - Sunni
• Outremer - Latin Rite
• Papal States - Papism
• Tibet - Mahayana

Expansion Pack II: “Terra Incognita”
Focusing on Colonization

• Argentina – Folk Catholicism & Roman Catholicism
• Aztec - Aztec pantheon
• Brazil - Folk Catholicism & Roman Catholicism
• Inca - Incan pantheon
• México - Folk Catholicism & Roman Catholicism
• Polynesia - Polynesian pantheon
• Sioux - Ghost Dance

DLC II: “Ex Oriente Lux”
Focusing on Eastern and Subcontinental Cultures

• Indochina - Mahāyāna
• Kiev Rus - Ukrainian Orthodoxy & Russian Orthodoxy
• Mongols - Tengrism
• Siam - Theravāda

Expansion III: “Plus Ultra”
Focusing on exploration and minor factions

• Britain - Druidism & Mithraism
• Korea - Tongbulgyo & Taoism
• Mali - Sunni
• Switzerland - Reformed
• Zulu - Baháʼí