Ah, I forgot about that; thanks, PARAdoxiBLE.

I have one question.  When you chose culture second time, can you chose another culture from bronze age? 

rejs7 wrote:

Just to say, that in reality the Egyptians were conquored/colonised by Persians, Greeks, Romans, Muslims, then the British, so this idea of evolving between cultures is actually a pretty neat one, especially if the buildings from each era change to fit the new culture. It is one of the problems of the Civ games in that everything is mono-cultural, when in reality cultures shifted and morphed throughout history.

'Egypt' was also conquered by Hyksos, Nubians, and 'subordinate Muslims' like the Ottoman Turks but rather than 'morphing', after almost 5000 years they are still recognizably and distinctively Egyptian.

On the other hand, Celtic Gaul became so completely 'Romanized' that even later invasion and settlement by Frankish and Burgundian Germanic tribes had very little influence on their language or culture: French is still heavily Latin-based and the French culure is still heavily Roman influenced, even to the structure of their civil administration and legal system.

How, I wonder, is the game going to accomodate such different outcomes?

Trdomir wrote:

I have one question.  When you chose culture second time, can you chose another culture from bronze age? 

I think not, although you can select your own culture again.

IvantheTolerable wrote:

'Egypt' was also conquered by Hyksos, Nubians, and 'subordinate Muslims' like the Ottoman Turks but rather than 'morphing', after almost 5000 years they are still recognizably and distinctively Egyptian.

On the other hand, Celtic Gaul became so completely 'Romanized' that even later invasion and settlement by Frankish and Burgundian Germanic tribes had very little influence on their language or culture: French is still heavily Latin-based and the French culure is still heavily Roman influenced, even to the structure of their civil administration and legal system.

How, I wonder, is the game going to accomodate such different outcomes?

That is a good point. Off the top of my head, the best I can think of is the architecture. Egypt built a lot of distinct buildings that are superior to pretty much anything any of their conquerors built, literally leaving their mark on the world. Same with Rome, they built roads and aqueducts and so many other things that even when they were gone you couldn't possiby forget them.

IvantheTolerable wrote:

'Egypt' was also conquered by Hyksos, Nubians, and 'subordinate Muslims' like the Ottoman Turks but rather than 'morphing', after almost 5000 years they are still recognizably and distinctively Egyptian.

Not sure that's true.  The original, ancient Egyptian political, judicial and administrative systems were replaced in their entirety and their culture was so thoroughly eradicated that no one was able to speak or read their rich language, despite living in the same cities where that language was once used.

TravlingCanuck wrote:

Not sure that's true.  The original, ancient Egyptian political, judicial and administrative systems were replaced in their entirety and their culture was so thoroughly eradicated that no one was able to speak or read their rich language, despite living in the same cities where that language was once used.

I stand by my statement. Despite remarkably comprehensive intrusions of language, religion, political control and administration, Egypt is still there, still recognizably Egypt and distinct from every other state in Africa or the Middle East. In fact, it stands as a good example of just how comprehensive 'Culural Changes' or adaptations can be and still encompass a single distinct Group.

Just as, for another example, the France of today would be practically unrecognizable to a Frenchman or European of, say, the reign of Louis XIII or Henri IV, except for the language. Even less recognizable would it be (including the language) to a Proto-Frenchman Celtic resident of Bibracte in 150 BCE.

Dinode wrote:

That is a good point. Off the top of my head, the best I can think of is the architecture. Egypt built a lot of distinct buildings that are superior to pretty much anything any of their conquerors built, literally leaving their mark on the world. Same with Rome, they built roads and aqueducts and so many other things that even when they were gone you couldn't possiby forget them.

I think Visual Distinction in architecture is a given, especially in graphic-heavy video games. On the other hand, simple architectural diversity is a pretty thin plank to support the kind of Cultural/Political/Religious diversity the two examples above illustrate.

Not saying it cannot be done, but I suspect to do it will require implementing a combination of 'built-in' Cultural traits or motifs for the various Civs/Factions and another set of Traits/Modifiers based on In-Game Events and/or Map Terrain.

Just for instance, try to imagine the differences if Egypt never became Islamic, with all the influences from that religion and culture? Or if France never had the comprehensive reform of its judicial and administrative and military systems instigated and empowered by Naopleon I?  - There's a case where a single 'Great Man' had a profound influence on later developments while Egypt's is a case of an 'outside' culture/religion Imposing massive change to a Civ/Society.

One of the most fascinating things about History is the extrreme complexity of all the interactions and the changes they produce, but that also makes composing any fraction of that into a single game massively complex.

As far as I think, I agree that fusion isn't much represented.

This said, I would go on a graphical side more than anything much...or even better we can choose the suits and everything while moving to the next era.

Like, I can choose to keep the togas from the Romans but add a horned helm from Vikings (I know they didn't use it in reality but it's for make an understandable example), call my guards the "Jagellin" (Jagiellon+Javelin, please don't hate me) or..I dunno decide to keep the colors.

Personally I would prefer the first and focus the blending on the leader...and maybe as a side put some details such as castle walls who are dirtied, the option to choose to safeguard some styles (like: you can select to keep a city with medioeval architecture and then decide in the modern era to put an evolution).

And maybe add also something about the ideology, like the more it's a collectivist city, the more the leader's dresses would be modest and simplified, or some civics may implement some look changes. 

On final idea (very "en passant") I would find interesting also seeing a little more personalization in the transitions between eras. Like, if I chose greeks the people in the cutscenes should be greek dressed.