The Dawn of Everything Thread (Oh, what an early game, indeed!)

[Saxo Grammaticus]

Against the Grain has been on a list here or there, so glad to have your recommendation as well. The more the idea sits with me, the more overlap I see with ideological tenets. For instance, consider early economic advances:

-Bureaucracy: Temple Economy, Trade Outposts

-Politics: Raiders, Distribution of Spoils

-Sovereignty: Tribute, Public Works

They would not necessarily be exclusive, but rather suggest strategic flavor. It would nice if names made explicit reference to states prominently accessible by the above concepts. Dawn of Everything would suggest Mesopotamian bureaucracy, Anatolian politics, and Egyptian sovereignty with many more examples from other cultures.

I was not thinking of Civ IV's starting techs or leader traits, but I do like both. Of course, it is fun to start with bonuses, but they also add strategic asymmetries from the beginning. Sui Generis is a great mod that implements a similar mechanism in Civ VI. For the bureaucracy/politics/sovereignty structure, it would be less a fixed bonus and more an aspect of early-game strategy with potentially deeper consequences. For Civ VI, a mix-and-match strategy sounds a bit too powerful--you can sort of see that with leader mods on Steam. I see a lot of potential for making civilizations more immersive, but balancing for uniques all over the place sounds like a strategic headache! I am curious what you would consider optimal faction design.

 

[Naokaukodem]

Anyway, I don't think Firaxis would go for some young theory like that, and that seems pretty confidencial too. (for the moment) Again, I would have to read the book first. What I would consider optimal faction design ? Hehe, that's pretty much simple, and it would be necessary in multiplayer : HAVING NO UNIQUES. (except names and other things that make you feel you are actually ruling a particular civ, but I have no idea for this on the moment. That said, unique city names are still already cool enough. I learned some capital/important foreign cities names by just playing Civ2 for example, and that was nice. Granted, some civs you play in Civ6 for example have constant reminder on the map that you play a particular civ, I think mostly about Pachacutec and his terrace farms all over the place, but most of the time it feels generic looking at the map, or being in another era than the one with their unique units. (buildings are not that visible on the map at a first glance))

So your idea of starting choices could help to make the game more player-driven, and less map dependant. I can blame the starting bias sometimes, especially with unpassable/unworkable mountains and unworkable deserts. Maybe Petra should be a normal building, and mountains passable, workable, and improvable. I blame myself suggesting one day on those forums that making mountains unpassable would make for more interesting adaptative gameplay, but I was thinking about Civ3, and in Civ3 we had stacks, and it was easier to get a great civ. (and anyway mountains were passable, we just need some or several mechanics that takes into account terrain porosity) The life would be so much more easier if we didn't have those terrain nonsense (including toundra, snow and ocean) and like mountains as the only major generator of science. We should definitely find other ways that can fit all kinds of terrains. I particularly dislike the science policy cards, that emphasis on adjacency bonuses also for the most part. I don't know, make it based on appeal or on adjacent tiles that would not be improved. (kind of the same thing ? Maybe, but I have difficulty to understand the mechanics of appeal) Or we could just make our personnal natural wonders with early naturalists. Placing a science district nearby would provide major science boost. Not to forget to generate more true natural wonders, that would benefit to campuses nearby. (not just faith)

Also, having no uniques would make everyone able to roleplay its country in a megalomaniac (or not) way, to win the wars their country lost by the past and to conquer the world. Granted, it worked best when I was a kid, but still. Because with only city names, every civ could be present, past and present. Maybe there is 200+ countries in the world at the moment ? There could be thousands of them. Plus, some of the uniques we see in Civs could be for everyone, like in Civ2 where legions were for everyone and in Civ4 where elephants were for everyone who had the resource. We could have a mix of them : either having a resource conditionate the ability to have some units, either the techs. (there would be a massive amount of dead-end techs that would be just about units and improvement. You start near mountains ? Research terrace farms that you could build not on hills, but on mountains, etc.) I'm thinking also that some pantheons should be for everyone. For example, God of the Sea should be default, because otherwise oceans are quite useless, especially with no resources. You have no fish ? Just build workboats everywhere and appreciate all the food and production. There should be more tiny islands to settle even in pangaea maps. You should be able to adapt in every terrain. Fortunately, Civ6 isn't too hard past the first AI rushes. By adapting everywhere at the cost of some research, we could make it harder.

 

[Saxo Grammaticus]

Thanks for sharing your idea for factions. Some asymmetry is necessary at this point, even if not especially for multiplayer, which in Civilization does include uniques. From what I can tell following the Civ VII "announcement" thread, even the question of choosing a starting faction seems quite controversial. I could definitely see the bureaucracy/politics/sovereignty civics division even be determined by a Neolithic Era, or the player only given a choice of two of the three, rather than a pure starting bonus or simply a part of game configuration.

 

[Orango Nash]

Some great ideas! I'm currently half way through The Dawn of Everything. Have also read Against the Grain and try and keep up with knowledge of prehistory. It's fascinating because so much has been learnt about it in the past 20 - 30 years, yet hasn't filtered into mainstream knowledge yet. Seems to me, that the very ideological foundation of Civ (and every other 4X game and several that purport to be prehistoric city builders) is on very shaky ground.

There's definitely a niche for an interesting game in there, if a game came out based on your ideas Saxo Grammaticus, I'd definitely buy it! I've just about given up on the mainstream 4X as it's been done to death, says nothing new about human history. And what it says about the start of that is now looking out of date and as wrong as when they believed God made the earth 4,000 years ago and put the fossils in for a bit of decoration!

As a victory condition, I think creating a society that survives and has high quality of life, perhaps life expectancy, could be the aim, rather than crushing all the other civs underfoot. Anyyway, the challenge would be to get that prehistoric reality into a "4X" view of the world, because I don't think relentless expansion was a thing back then. Games like Thea and King of Dragon Pass perhaps resemble more what life was like for most of human history, rather than a 4X model.

 

[Saxo Grammaticus]

Thanks! So far, I would say my direct ideas appear to have niche appeal I am also eager to see increased understanding of culture and human history (including prehistory!) assimilate into the 4X genre and other games. To be fair, though, my first encounter with Civilization for sure consolidated a lifelong interest in these subjects, and @Andrew Johnson [FXS]'s work continues to enlighten me. It will be interesting to see how Civ VII handles these opportunities.

As noted by Boris earlier in the thread, there are good reasons to start the game around an urbanization Singularity Event. Personally, I am more interested in how Graeber and Wengrow's Neolithic can revolutionize the early game.

There are definitely expansive concepts from the prehistoric, like culture groups, trade, and dispersion of cultivars, but on top of that exists that little mystery of how humans went from nomadic tribes to these societies and empires of the ancient world. I am not familiar with Thea, but I do like the survival dynamics of King of Dragon Pass. Feel free to share any ideas you come up with as you continue reading The Dawn of Everything.

 

[pineappledan]

I just think you should get a very simple Neolithic era.

You get clear vision in every direction for 4 tiles at game start, and you get a settler and a scout unit to start. You get up to 10 turns to move around and found your first city. Once you settle you wait until the 10 turns are up for everyone else before your city collects resources etc. You can wait longer than the 10 turns to settle, but other players’ starting cities are “unlocked” after that.

If a crop system is added, that is decided AFTER you settle, based on the tiles around your first city.

That’s enough time for players to not need start biases anymore, and be able to find terrain they want that will fit their civ’s playstyle. all a Neolithic era needs to do is give players enough control over their start location that they don’t feel like they need to reroll their naval civ game because they started inland. If there was a crop mechanic, then starting resource density would be less of a problem since you can place your own resources. Don’t think it needs to be any more complicated than that.

 

[Naokaukodem]

If there was a crop mechanic, then starting resource density would be less of a problem since you can place your own resources. Don’t think it needs to be any more complicated than that.

Adding that would still be something ! Probably going against the traditional Civ mechanics though... but maybe not that much against Civ6's as districts placement often needs a resource to be removed...

As for before 4000 BCE (I don't even know how it's called, maybe not Neolithic, maybe not even Prehistory), I would want it to be a preconfiguration of empires, and that empires result naturally from it. By unstacking population points for example. But you know my signature I guess.

 

[pokiehl]

I just think you should get a very simple Neolithic era.

You get clear vision in every direction for 4 tiles at game start, and you get a settler and a scout unit to start. You get up to 10 turns to move around and found your first city. Once you settle you wait until the 10 turns are up for everyone else before your city collects resources etc. You can wait longer than the 10 turns to settle, but other players’ starting cities are “unlocked” after that.

If a crop system is added, that is decided AFTER you settle, based on the tiles around your first city.

That’s enough time for players to not need start biases anymore, and be able to find terrain they want that will fit their civ’s playstyle. all a Neolithic era needs to do is give players enough control over their start location that they don’t feel like they need to reroll their naval civ game because they started inland. If there was a crop mechanic, then starting resource density would be less of a problem since you can place your own resources. Don’t think it needs to be any more complicated than that.

This would completely ruin the early game tension of "Settle in place vs risk falling behind in search of a better spot."

I don't think it would add anything to the game except making the early game less exciting and forcing you to wait 10 turns for no reason.

 

[pineappledan]

This would completely ruin the early game tension of "Settle in place vs risk falling behind in search of a better spot."

That's something I'm perfectly happy to sacrifice if it means people don't have to worry about the start bias glitching, or placing them in a bad spot, and being Forced to look for a better spot because of a dice roll at the game start.

I don't think it would add anything to the game except making the early game less exciting and forcing you to wait 10 turns for no reason.

If playing in single player, the remaining turns for the AI would be nearly instantaneous. Your city would be paused so everyone can start the ancient era together, but you could still move your scout around and explore the map before the barbs get seeded in at the turn 10 era start. It would be a very quick, easy inclusion that wouldn't add more than 1-2 minutes of risk-free scouting and movement at the start of the game, but save a potential game-long problem of an unlucky start.

Adding that would still be something ! Probably going against the traditional Civ mechanics though... but maybe not that much against Civ6's as districts placement often needs a resource to be removed...

Something has to give in that respect... The cities in civ 6 gobble up a lot of the game board, especially with each of the 53+ wonders occupying tiles as well. Space and tile management went in a weird direction with civ 6.

 

[pokiehl]

I just totally disagree. You're trading in the excitement of exploration and uncertainty in the first few turns for a boring, risk-free way to ensure you min-max your perfect city start.

 

[pineappledan]

You wouldn't have perfect information on your start, since no resources would be revealed, and 10 turns isn't enough time to explore an entire continent for your perfect start. It's enough time to avoid the worst placements and at least guarantee some minimum security like making sure your naval civ actually has the capital near a coastline, or to at least find a river to settle on as Egypt.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

You wouldn't have perfect information on your start, since no resources would be revealed, and 10 turns isn't enough time to explore an entire continent for your perfect start. It's enough time to avoid the worst placements and at least guarantee some minimum security like making sure your naval civ actually has the capital near a coastline, or to at least find a river to settle on as Egypt.

There's already a "Faster Starting Settler" Mod and an "Increased early vision" Mod, both of which I play with 100% of the time, because they accomplish almost exactly what you are proposing, and all on the first turn. They basically change your 'starting position' to anywhere within 4 - 5 tiles of where your Settler happens to be placed, all of which and more is visible right away. Given the massive and continuing problems with Civ VI's (and earlier games') Start Bias positions, I wouldn't be attempting to play the game at all without those Mods.

But, reducing an entire Neolithic Start to just that is wasting a New Resource in the game that can be used for so much more. In fact, I would say that it repeats the mistake Humankind made with their bare-bones and, frankly, boring Neolithic Start.

The period from approximately 10,000 to 4,000 BCE which, I believe, would be a good timeframe for such a mechanic saw the first Agriculture, most of the important domesticated animals, the earliest horseback riding, extensive trade between relatively distant sites, and the start of some very important cultural/social policies and aspects of later civilizations. Currently, the game reduces all of that to After 4000 BCE or Implicit in the Civ You Are Playing.

The whole point of the book being discussed in this thread is that 'city founding' and the Urban Development that Civilization games are based on were NOT the only path available in the early period, and that Cultural aspects were at least as important as Technological ones. Why bother with an earlier start period if we aren't going to at least explore those propositions?

 

[pineappledan]

My opinion about a neolithic, pre-cities era is that its only goal should be to rectify bad starts in a quick and painless way. Maybe it can be done even faster and more painlessly than what I suggested, without implying it become a full pre-era. However, anything more than addressing starting bias issues is an overcomplication that risks making the dichotomy between good starts and bad ones even worse.

I'm skeptical that actually trying to flesh out a neolithic era in a civ game would provide a better gameplay experience, rather than delay the parts of the game players want to get to. You are necessarily talking about adding a section of gameplay that has less going on than turn 1 of a standard game starting in ancient, or you're talking about adding entirely new mechanics only to remove them once the ancient era starts. Neither of those sound like valuable additions.

 

[pokiehl]

That would be so immersion breaking--to settle a city then be forced to wait arbitrary turns until you can start developing it. It would just destroy so much of the early game to me. Another key component of the first few turns is balancing whether to start producting warriors, infrastructure, or a scout to explore more. By just "giving" us exploration free, you take away that important and interesting choice.

I am quite against the idea of a neolithic era in general, but if it must be implemented, I agree with @Boris Gudenuf that it should at least have a lot more to do and a grander purpose than "rectify bad starts" (which could be done in much less intrusive, less cumbersome ways).

 

[Saxo Grammaticus]

It is reasonable to question how the Neolithic would shape the rest of the game. As noted before, certainly there would be thematic introduction, but here are two map mechanics that would shape the larger game.

The book offers culture areas as regional culture clusters defined by rejection of neighboring identities. There are several examples of how group identity has justified the rejection of plausibly superior technology people would already have been quite familiar with. The political idea would be that cultural diffusion has been influenced by questions of integrity and identity. Similarly, the authors trace the fracturing of large Mesolithic culture areas into more distinct groups.

Another idea would be ecological corridors like East-West orientation of Eurasia where cultivars could spread with less resistance than the North-South orientation of other continents, an idea that came to me early on in life as the Cabbage Patch...

Synthesizing culture areas and ecological corridors could redefine the early game with lingering consequences. For instance, the player may be prompted to give up certain acquired bonuses as they expand into new culture areas to represent the sense of integrity. Culture areas would be much easier to expand into, while their total size would fracture possibly into the mid-game. As for ecological corridors, the potential for flora and fauna would be greater across East-West bands, the largest of which could offer rapid expansion whether peacefully or through conquest.

The result would be numerous tradeoffs prompted by culture areas and ecological corridors. Do you settle to expand into a culture area or similar biome? Are your traits worth isolation from neighboring culture areas? How confident are you settling in a major ecological corridor knowing there will likely be much earlier conflict?

By the mid-game, culture areas would give way to other forms of cultural affinity, like religion, while large ecological corridors would probably be the site of persistent conflict and expansion.

 

[Naokaukodem]

Another key component of the first few turns is balancing whether to start producting warriors, infrastructure, or a scout to explore more. By just "giving" us exploration free, you take away that important and interesting choice.

Thing is, in Civ6 you just don't have a real choice to what to build first since you don't know your environment. To know your environment, scouts are the best option, because it's the cheapest unit and the fastest to explore.

It is reasonable to question how the Neolithic would shape the rest of the game. As noted before, certainly there would be thematic introduction, but here are two map mechanics that would shape the larger game.

The book offers culture areas as regional culture clusters defined by rejection of neighboring identities. There are several examples of how group identity has justified the rejection of plausibly superior technology people would already have been quite familiar with. The political idea would be that cultural diffusion has been influenced by questions of integrity and identity. Similarly, the authors trace the fracturing of large Mesolithic culture areas into more distinct groups.

Another idea would be ecological corridors like East-West orientation of Eurasia where cultivars could spread with less resistance than the North-South orientation of other continents, an idea that came to me early on in life as the Cabbage Patch...

Synthesizing culture areas and ecological corridors could redefine the early game with lingering consequences. For instance, the player may be prompted to give up certain acquired bonuses as they expand into new culture areas to represent the sense of integrity. Culture areas would be much easier to expand into, while their total size would fracture possibly into the mid-game. As for ecological corridors, the potential for flora and fauna would be greater across East-West bands, the largest of which could offer rapid expansion whether peacefully or through conquest.

The result would be numerous tradeoffs prompted by culture areas and ecological corridors. Do you settle to expand into a culture area or similar biome? Are your traits worth isolation from neighboring culture areas? How confident are you settling in a major ecological corridor knowing there will likely be much earlier conflict?

By the mid-game, culture areas would give way to other forms of cultural affinity, like religion, while large ecological corridors would probably be the site of persistent conflict and expansion.

I suggested one time to replace "continents" by "culture areas". That would make sense if you make so that the map feels alive, as opposed to desertic people-wise. For that purpose, there should definitely be several tracks of life, like abandonned camp fires, foot prints, etc. and obviously actual people wandering as hunter-gatherers. Most of the time those would be neutral, but they could also be friendly or aggressive. (replacing respectively tribal villages and barbarians) You could attract them in your cultural sphere of influence, if they are not already in it at start. (I dream of a possibility to remake China or Mongolia unification -for example- by conquering & keeping those, as opposed to conquer and not keep them if they are too different culturally. Cultural strenght would be very important even very early, and building a monument in your capital/starting point would be to be considered more strongly. If you conquer your neighbours you could be subjuged by their culture and your conquered lands would fall back to their initial owner -but not your initial territory, just like China's conquest by Mongols-, or you could naturally attract neighbours within our sphere without even fighting -that being translated by population points bonuses and/or various "goody huts" effects we have seen in past Civs)

 

[Saxo Grammaticus]

While I clearly support an "inhabited" quality, I also can see interesting interplay by overlaying culture areas on the map. I understand it less as the player's culture overwhelming their neighbors, but rather as there being less resistance across the culture area. This could indicate where to settle without substantial strain on one's society. This would also imply areas of greater resistance, whether fractured mountainous border zones or rival lands. There could also be a distinction between civilizations arising from a single culture area and those that straddle two or more culture areas from an early stage. Religion would be empowered as a major factor in smoothing cultural differences across the map.

The Yuan example you offer illustrates the kind of strain expansion into another culture (area) would represent. Rather than one taking over the other, it could present opportunities for syncretism, harmonization, culture enforcement, or other civic projects and processes.

I am not quite sure how the abstract culture yield would play into this. At the same time I can see culture areas implemented through an emergent Neolithic or expediently generated in a future game. For Civ VI, Sui Generis achieves regional/cultural groupings in a manner appropriate to gameplay.