Civilizations identity / nationality evolution system

[Naokaukodem]

In Civilization, civilizations are in one block. I mean you pick the French, you pick the French, and you will continue all the way with them. You may change your governement, your strategies but never your nationality and what you are in substance. You will always have the same center, the same identity, the same power.

I think that a civilization evolves. Even if it is represented in Civilization, because it can't be avoided, I think it is the most interesting and fascinating feature of a civilization that a civilization can become another civilization. Not only, it is the most interesting feature in term of gameplay in Civilization: to see your civilization change and grow.

This is why i would want to see a system in Civilization 4 that allows an evolution of a civilization culture, power, identity. The better would be an evolution in relation with the other civilizations. It could be done through culture, appartenance feeling, revolutions, events, trade, spreading...

The other things i would want to see for a good civilization evolving is technology diversity, with large tech trees, very specific, inventive and optional technologies.

Some other things already influences this civilization evolving and specificities, like military leaders that give a civilization a good military past and present.

For sure, a Civilization game with such specifities would be a revolution: civilizations would be highly customizable and would be very realistic and generally, i think, very "civilizationish".

What do you think of this, do you think like me that it would be a revolution or just a little amelioration with no consequence on the gameplay?

[petermarkab]

I've often thought while playing through the initial phase of civ that the factors which i come across in the game should shape the way my civ behaves and confer upon it relevent bonuses based on these factors.

For example, if my start position is in the middle of a large continent, surrounded by (primarily) hills and desert, and i've got many aggressive neighbours, I'll be forced to expand into the desert and produce lots of early military units if my civ is to survive.
Because of these circumstances, my people will become more adept at working the land in the desert and on hilly slopes so will receive a food bonus in hills and desert, say.
And they'll have a militaristic tendency due to the high recruitment to military units and the infrastucture that goes along with it.

So i think in this example the environment has shaped the civilisation rather than the current system where the traits a civ starts with shapes its environment.

Naokaukodem, I think this is concurrent with your good ideas of an evolving national identity and culture

[Mark_Everson]

Hi Naokaukodem:

Originally posted by Naokaukodem
For sure, a Civilization game with such specifities would be a revolution: civilizations would be highly customizable and would be very realistic and generally, i think, very "civilizationish".

What do you think of this, do you think like me that it would be a revolution or just a little amelioration with no consequence on the gameplay?

Although if done fully, your ideas could be somewhat revolutionary, probably the best that could be hoped for with C4 is a little evolution in that direction. I also agree with Peter that the context in which your civ evolves should make a difference, and that civ bonuses should come more out of your civ's history than your starting pick.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Naokaukodem
In Civilization, civilizations are in one block. I mean you pick the French, you pick the French, and you will continue all the way with them. You may change your governement, your strategies but never your nationality and what you are in substance. You will always have the same center, the same identity, the same power.

I am not sure what you are saying, maybe you are reading too much into the label. "The French" is only a label for your tribe, you could call it "Fire Toad" or whatever that pleases you. In fact you can rename your tribe in Civ I, which is one of the nice little touches.

[Naokaukodem]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


I am not sure what you are saying, maybe you are reading too much into the label. "The French" is only a label for your tribe, you could call it "Fire Toad" or whatever that pleases you. In fact you can rename your tribe in Civ I, which is one of the nice little touches.

In Civilization you can't change the label during the game, it remains the very same during all the game. But i don't think that the label is very important here. The more important is the identity of the civilization: it would have to change with the time, with culture meltings, trade, events like revolutions or conquests, spreading and migrations. This is what i try to say by "civilization in one block": instead of being managed like one entity, in one block, our civilization could be manage like several unified entities, in several blocks.

[Naokaukodem]

Originally posted by petermarkab Naokaukodem, I think this is concurrent with your good ideas of an evolving national identity and culture

Yes, it makes me think about Alpha Centauri, where you could choose what KIND of tech to reseach.
But my main idea would be to change the very identity of the civilization, not only some characteristics. Civilizations are not a block in reality, they change, mute, disappear and appear. And i think representing this would give high and numerous elements of gameplay.

[Shogun Gunner]

This a great idea, Naokaukodem - without qualification.

The difficulty comes in how it's programmed and how it manifests itself in the game. If adopted and done right, this could be a feature that defines cIV.

I would assume all tribes start from the same point. No advantages, no tendencies, etc. A civ near the ocean or with a lot of cities on the coast would start to get advantages in reduced costs in building ship related units, improvements. Perhaps after building your third harbor, the cost starts to come down.

To take that another step, if you conqured a number of cities from a neighboring nation, the traits of the foreign nationals in your new cities would have a different character. Over time, this would influence your nation's values, traits, etc.

Very interesting idea. This needs to get incorporated onto one of the official lists.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Naokaukodem
In Civilization you can't change the label during the game, it remains the very same during all the game. But i don't think that the label is very important here. The more important is the identity of the civilization: it would have to change with the time, with culture meltings, trade, events like revolutions or conquests, spreading and migrations. This is what i try to say by "civilization in one block": instead of being managed like one entity, in one block, our civilization could be manage like several unified entities, in several blocks.

I am not sure what you are getting at. It seems that the "identity" (whatever that is) of a civilisation is not fixed in any of the Civ games. It changes as the game progresses.

The problem is not with the game identity but how you perceive the civilization you control. Most of us don't play the game to see how the culture evolves; we play to beat the living jeebees out of other players (computer or otherwise). In other words, Civilization is not a simulation, it's a strategy game.

[LDiCesare]

One thing which would be interesting is to start as Angles, become English, and decide to become Americans. Or start as latins and become Roman and then Italian for instance (though Italians could also be an evolution of Lombards...)

[Naokaukodem]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


I am not sure what you are getting at. It seems that the "identity" (whatever that is) of a civilisation is not fixed in any of the Civ games. It changes as the game progresses.

The problem is not with the game identity but how you perceive the civilization you control. Most of us don't play the game to see how the culture evolves; we play to beat the living jeebees out of other players (computer or otherwise). In other words, Civilization is not a simulation, it's a strategy game.

The civilization core does not change in Civilization series. It remains always the same. You don't have to manage groups within your own civilization to prevent them to revolt and have their independance. You don't have to see some of your cities separate from your civilization and form their independent one. You don't see an isolated city rally your civilization because of its affinities with it. You don't have to take care much about the nationality of the new conquered cities, except for citizen rebellion or assimilation. You don't have to take care about this diversity and make as so they can live together in one block, in one civilization or nation (hey, what's the difference between a civilization and a nation, precisely?). You don't have to take care about your every neighbours and even your own new founded cities because they may be culturally, naturally different from you. This is as many gameplay elements there is not in Civilization series. It is not micromanagement, macromanagement or more unusefull task to impose to the player, but many complementary elements that helps to define the original gameplay: to make your civilization grow and survive.

[Naokaukodem]

Originally posted by LDiCesare
One thing which would be interesting is to start as Angles, become English, and decide to become Americans. Or start as latins and become Roman and then Italian for instance (though Italians could also be an evolution of Lombards...)

It is somehow the spirit, even if changes in the name would not be absolutely necessary.

[Earthling7]

I like the idea. Nothing is more silly than playiong the Vikings, being famous for your grand fleet and seafaring skills, only to build your first naval vessel in the 20th century.

Still, looking back, this is exactly the kind of a great idea that will never be implemented into Civ.

[petermarkab]

Originally posted by Naokaukodem

The more important is the identity of the civilization: it would have to change with the time, with culture meltings, trade, events like revolutions or conquests, spreading and migrations.

In a sense I agree with you that this is how civilisation should play, but as the Father of the nation, the player is in a unique position of nurturing and directing his or her people over the course of 6000 years! I'm not sure how this constant of time fits in with your description of the fluidic transformations of one's civilisation, although I'd like it too!

Originally posted by Urban Ranger

Civilization is not a simulation, it's a strategy game.

Well, yes but would it be so bad if the game occasionally carried you off on a merry ride to some unknown destination?

[petermarkab]

Originally posted by Shogun Gunner

To take that another step, if you conqured a number of cities from a neighboring nation, the traits of the foreign nationals in your new cities would have a different character. Over time, this would influence your nation's values, traits, etc.

Yes, exactly. And think about the possibilities for unique units - British Indian Gurkha Units, WW2 (hehe, i know, only one) - as well as the benefits integration of different populations brings to tolerance of different cultures and religions, given that religion seems to have a more prominant role to play.

[Naokaukodem]

Originally posted by petermarkab


In a sense I agree with you that this is how civilisation should play, but as the Father of the nation, the player is in a unique position of nurturing and directing his or her people over the course of 6000 years! I'm not sure how this constant of time fits in with your description of the fluidic transformations of one's civilisation, although I'd like it too!

You can play with a king. That must be re-elected, have a heir, etc... or even with a millenium single king as you the player, you could always have civilization profound changes, it does not prevent anything really... except to stay at the best power level... the best we can do.

[realpolitic]

I think some traits could be good. To counteract a civ that's all war for a hundred turns, it could become brutish: science goes down even further. A civ that bulds culture suddenly gets a discount in the cost of building cultural improvements, does it continue into an "overkill" of culture just because it's cheap? Learning institutions beome cheaper when you build plenty: Should you build cheap Universities or go to war. Most civ were easier to win at high levels with lots of war, let's keep some incentive for war, but also add these incentives for peace.

[Max Sinister]

A Civ "too cultural" becomes too sophisticated: People don't care for problems of economy or military because that's under their dignity; they prefer to write poems about chrysanthemums (like some Chinese mandarins, I imagine. Don't want to offend anyone).

[realpolitic]

I'll agree on them not liking the military, but I certainly see plenty of "social justice" art.

[GAZ082]

All this can be programmed in Python, i think. Is just a mix of
"if".

For example, if 50% of your land is dessert, and has been that way for, 100 turns, you will get a food bonus:

"if DessertLandPer >= 50 AND Turns >= 100 then
FoodinDessertTiles = FoodinDessertitles+1"

That is the basic logic, the pseudocode.

If Soren releases the AI and game mechanics code, im sure you will be able to define custom variables to represent that.

For example, you count how many dessert tiles you have in your territory, this should be given by a function, taking in consideration what land you have in your borders. Perhaps, you will be able to access the data in a list like...

Terrains = [Tundra, Dessert, Forest]

Now, the data in the list, would be like:
Terrains = [10, 50, 20]
So, within your borders you got 10 tundra, 50 dessert and 20 forest. Python does not know that the first number is Tundra, but you do and you can call it like:
terrains[1]...
****, ill put the friggin code like in Python, dudes, this is Python, ill copy and paste:

Python 2.4.1 (#65, Mar 30 2005, 09:13:57) [MSC v.1310 32 bit (Intel)] on win32
Type "copyright", "credits" or "license()" for more information.

************************************************** **************
Personal firewall software may warn about the connection IDLE
makes to its subprocess using this computer's internal loopback
interface. This connection is not visible on any external
interface and no data is sent to or received from the Internet.
************************************************** **************

IDLE 1.1.1
>>> terrains = [10, 50, 20]
>>> terrains[1]
50
>>> desert= terrains[1]
>>> desert
50
>>> PerofDesert = (desert*100)/(terrains[0]+terrains[1]+terrains[2])
>>> PerofDesert
62
>>> if PerOfDesert >= 50 and Turns >= 100:
' Change the property "food" to every desert in your empire.'

There, you have.

Imagine the map like points. Every point is a tile, and has coordinates, like (12,54) or perhaps, just a number to 65000, numbering every tile of a map since 0 (upper left) to the max, lower right. So, im pretty sure, you will be able to know all the properties of a tile checking a nested table:

>>> world = [1,2,3,4] 'Until the last one, perhaps 65000 in a huge map.
>>> world[0] = ["Yo! Im a hot desert!", "Food = 2"]
>>> world[0]
['Yo! Im a hot desert!', 'Food = 2']
>>> world[0][1]
'Food = 2'
>>> world[0][0]
'Yo! Im a hot desert!'

There is a nested table. world[0] calls the first item of the table world, and the secon [] calls the first or second value within the first item in world.

I dont know how they are gonna use XML to put the data, but they are no different to Python's tables.

Hope i made my point, is 2 am here and ive been busy all day...

[Addled Platypus]

Just a thought of a PBEM game where two gamers a playing alike?

I would think there should be small difference between the two


Great Idea by the way

[realpolitic]

Originally posted by Naokaukodem


In Civilization you can't change the label during the game, it remains the very same during all the game. But i don't think that the label is very important here. The more important is the identity of the civilization: it would have to change with the time, with culture meltings, trade, events like revolutions or conquests, spreading and migrations. This is what i try to say by "civilization in one block": instead of being managed like one entity, in one block, our civilization could be manage like several unified entities, in several blocks.

Are yo refering to nations with several cultural identities like America's Bible belt, Left Coast, Heartland ,and the east Coast, and
Iraqs Sunnis Kurds and Shiia?

[Naokaukodem]

I guess that the system mentionned above would take care of such cultural identities. But there I don't know if they are geographical. They may be more historic, and in such case it would be quite difficult to simulate them. But the spirit of the idea is effectively to dissociate the culture from the frontiers, so there could be several cultures in a same country, indeed. But i guess that with time, those cultures would melt and form a new one.
Well in fact I think that the culture identities you mention are more religious identities than truly culture ones. This system works with totally different cultures, not with only religious schisms.

[ghen]

Are you thinking along the lines of a nationality tree, like the tech tree is now? Start with maybe 5-10 base nationalities from the stone age (nation used loosely here) and have them evolve into their respective geographical nations later, like have the Saxons evolve into british and irish nations and you have to choose which you want to become with varying differences. (don't quote my history)

Thats alot more static than having bonuses based on gameplay, but I think more fun since you have a bit more control.

[Naokaukodem]

Well in fact I don't know how irish separated from british in reality, it would be a good information to see. But I'm thinking more like those would have been separated from the start and have been formed in one country. I mean the irish and british would have been separated before even the hypothetic formation of a saxon state. Then the saxon state take form, then the local cultures are too strong and reinforce themselve and separate the country in several other nations. There, if you were at the head of the saxon state, you'll have to choose which new country to manage. The only thing is that I don't know if a united country can separate itself with time in more little ones, and how to translate this in Civ if this is true. Idea maybe?

[Jonah5]

Wow I had almost the same ideas that you...Naokaukodem....had. When i first heard they were making civ4 the first thing i did was fill about 20 pages of paper up with things i would like to see in civ4, but my hopes for the game are, i think, years ahead of our current technology. I think I only put one of my ideas on the forums but that was so long ago I can't remember it. But I completely agree with you. Maybe soon your ideas can come to pass, oh and mine too!

[NanoDingo]

Like the Demographics in Civ II, only they actually affect game-play? Like if a Civilization has the longest Military Service for, say, 50 turns, it gains free promotions on units produced, for example; highest Literacy Rate might grant free Libraries. Although, these examples both tend towards positive feedback loops, so it might unbalance the game...

[Bobby Chicken]

over complexity is never good...

[Naokaukodem]

Don't say foolish things please. Where did you see overcomplexity? Because you don't understand a concept does not mean it is complex.

[Naokaukodem]

Originally posted by Shogun Gunner
To take that another step, if you conqured a number of cities from a neighboring nation, the traits of the foreign nationals in your new cities would have a different character. Over time, this would influence your nation's values, traits, etc.

That's exactly the idea! If you conquer a city, you will want to improve the culture. Then your culture will start to mix with the foreign culture already present. At a point, this could form a third culture that could rebel if you don't take care enough, like the fall of the Roman Empire. If fact, each time a foreign culture will break the 1/3 of the local culture of a city, a third culture will take form and begin to "vampirize" the two fighting cultures, taking culture points from them to add to it. If the third culture reach a point when it dominate the other cultures within the city, then there is a chance for a rebellion and a civil war, this city revendicating independance.