I've made mention elsewhere (probably the Steam forums) that this game bears a STRONG resemblance to the Avalon Hill boardgame, Pax Britannica.  In that game, there were several initial cultures that would, at different dates go extinct or be absorbing by a rising culture.  Like Humankind, the different player positions were color-coded: The initial red culture could only transition to the next red culture.  But in PB, there was some distinct aspects of understandable EVOLUTION from one to the next.  Based almost entirely on the historical rise and fall of cultures across Britain.  Here in Humankind, there literally NO cultural restraints on the transitions.  The player can go from a culture of peaceful philosophers and scientists to become a horde of nomadic bloodthirsty horde massacring anyone in their path. 

^That seems far too .... whimsical of a transition to me.  In some cases as drastic as being Black one day and White the next.

Yeah, it is very "gamey," but restricting what cultures a player can pick in a game wouldn't really work mechanically.

They could add a narrative event, that helps to sort of reframe the sudden change. (and maybe allow you to change names/graphics of capital/important cities to the new culture)

Also could be something to start planning a mod for.

I do like the idea of an Earth mod where your choices of culture are limited by the territories you control. ie you only pick Mongols if you control part of the area the historical Mongols did.  If there are no available options in your current territory, then the culture closest to you (and any others not much farther) are your only options.

Krikkitone wrote:

I do like the idea of an Earth mod where your choices of culture are limited by the territories you control. ie you only pick Mongols if you control part of the area the historical Mongols did.  If there are no available options in your current territory, then the culture closest to you (and any others not much farther) are your only options.

Sounds a lot like Paradox games formable nations, i.e. forming Japan in Europa Universalis 4 by owning 25+ cities and the core provinces of Kyoto and Musashi.

You pick a Militarist because you want to go to war. You go to war during the period where your people were more inclined toward it, and developed specific culture around it (emblematic unit), and you built up to it once the winds started to shift.

Don't imagine the culture as the people are suddenly Mongols when they were peaceful Greeks just a moment ago. Imagine instead your people were peaceful and had a tradition of debate, but over time too much effort was spent debating and standard of living declined, and now people have started to take to horses and find pillaging easier than farming as a result. Eventually, they go to war.

Perhaps the issue is just that the game waves away the transition as a sudden gameplay change, and that if they provided a narrative then it would feel more natural to you?

Yeah, I would prefer it if already built quarters didn't magically change on culture switch, although it might look a little funky to have Ancient Era Quarter next to modern ones.

A couple thoughts to add:

1) What if more turns were added as a "transition" period? And if the type of culture is different than your current one (both regionwise and type) then there is more instability and certain events around that?

2) Definitely think the built areas should stay the culture of when they were built, but they can modernize. This way you can remember your past. So for example, you build Roman cities, then switch to Teutonic Knights (eg), your new areas would be medieval German, but your previously built ones would upgrade to medieval Latin. Historically it would make more sense, but graphically, it probably impacts gameplay since you wouldn't be easily able to tell districts, etc., since there'd be a huge mix of things going on at once.

I would also prefer to see some kind of transition period if the shift is very drastic. It should still be possible - I dont mind it being gamey, because afterall this is a game and even the concept of egyptians becoming mayas is weird in every level but in a game like this.

It gives you options to plan forward, but "choose your new culture" and next turn everyone agrees to be something else entirely is a bit... odd. At least there should be some kind of stability hubup for a few turns.

It comes with the nature of naming these cultures after historical counterparts instead of something generic. Not much to do except add flavour to the culture transition screen in order to make it more believable. Something in addition to the breakdown of all their districts, units, effects, but also the reason for why you're becoming this culture, explaining their style of gameplay and line of thinking, in order to better understand how and why you're becoming them.

Players should not be punished for moving on to the next culture, especially not for  moving on to certain cultures. The flexibility is key to the game.

Krikkitone wrote:

I think a “transition narrative event” would work to handle the suspension of disbelief.

The problem with this idea is that there are TOO MANY combinations that would have to show how, "We went from this to that."

In regards to transitions, I'd suggest that there be something like a "philosophical scale":  Pacifist <<<<<<<>>>>>>>>Warmonger

When transitioning from one era to the next, the player would be restricted to choosing the same, current philosophy to the philosophy to either side, more Pacifistic or more Warmongerish.  That would reduce the now present "culture shock" of having a culture make a 180 degree change.

Krikkitone wrote:

If you limit it to affinity->affinity you only have 49...for that matter you really only need 7 (different narrative explaining the rise of the new affinity (regardless of the old ones)...and pacifist/Warmonger is not part of Humankind’s culture (or ideology) the closest is the militarist affinity...but that is 1 out of 7

Just to clarify, what I was suggesting was (using your 7 point scale) an eligible shift for, say, a 3 Culture would be to a next era 2, 3, or 4 Culture.  A present 1 Culture would only have a choice of a future 1 or 2 Culture, and a present 7 Culture would have only a choice of a future 6 or 7 Culture.  If there was additional scalable parameters, say Religiosity, it would further narrow possible choices.

Still, even with fewer possible transition choices available, trying to create narratives for each possible combination would require LOTS of graphic resources.  For EACH era change.  I doubt that any game developer would believe that the cost to make those narratives necessary.  (Which, if necessary, would cost the company LOTS of money when, invariably, development NEVER has enough money to do all the things that they want to do.  Not to mention an impatient game development banker demanding, "Finish and release the damn game already!")

The entire purpose of the culture system is to be as free-form as possible. This goes against the entire design philosophy of the game.

CaptainPatch wrote:

Krikkitone wrote:

If you limit it to affinity->affinity you only have 49...for that matter you really only need 7 (different narrative explaining the rise of the new affinity (regardless of the old ones)...and pacifist/Warmonger is not part of Humankind’s culture (or ideology) the closest is the militarist affinity...but that is 1 out of 7

Just to clarify, what I was suggesting was (using your 7 point scale) an eligible shift for, say, a 3 Culture would be to a next era 2, 3, or 4 Culture.  A present 1 Culture would only have a choice of a future 1 or 2 Culture, and a present 7 Culture would have only a choice of a future 6 or 7 Culture.  If there was additional scalable parameters, say Religiosity, it would further narrow possible choices.

Still, even with fewer possible transition choices available, trying to create narratives for each possible combination would require LOTS of graphic resources.  For EACH era change.  I doubt that any game developer would believe that the cost to make those narratives necessary.  (Which, if necessary, would cost the company LOTS of money when, invariably, development NEVER has enough money to do all the things that they want to do.  Not to mention an impatient game development banker demanding, "Finish and release the damn game already!")

There is no “scale” from 1 to 7. there are 7 distinct options (in terms of affinity). As mentioned the game should be freeform as possible, no limitations on cultural era changes..besides mods.

You could create a narrative blurb that covers affinity -> affinity, so only 49 options. Couple that with the blurb the narrator says about the upcoming era, and you have an explanation of how your culture has shifted. If that isn't sufficient for a thematically-motivated player, then they can simply choose to pick something they think makes sense; nothing's stopping them. Putting a restriction here would ruin the whole point of the game for everybody else, though.

The stated design philosophy is to allow for free-form culture advancement. Think "100000 culture combinations", or the emphasis on Alt-History.

If what you say is true, than this is definitely NOT a game about HUMANkind.  Humans in their collective masses don't make such dramatic shifts.  (Other than be exterminated or absorbed by more aggressive cultures.)

Krikkitone wrote:

Yes they do because no culture is “pacifist” v militaristic.  All cultures are to some degree of militaristic/scientific/agrarian, etc.  You might be thinking of the “ideologies” which do move slowly from one extreme to the other (although war v peace is not one of the four axes)

How would you describe, for instance, the culture of Tibet?  Or the Indian culture under Mahatma Gandhi?  IT may be true that EVERY culture has some degree of Militarism -- at least enough to militarily resist some other nation overrunning them -- but there IS a distinct scale running from them to HUGELY Militaristic cultures such as the Mongols, Huns, Germans (under Hitler), etc.  

Can you envision the Tibetan culture as it is (and has been for centuries) transforming into something akin to Germany under Hitler?  Or Cambodia under Pol Pot?  All in the space of ONE generation?  I can't.

During the Thirty Years' War, the Czechs were baptized Catholics in 5 days and became faithful Catholics. And Germany after the defeat was denazified and became probably the most peaceful state in Europe.

CaptainPatch wrote:

How would you describe, for instance, the culture of Tibet?  Or the Indian culture under Mahatma Gandhi?  IT may be true that EVERY culture has some degree of Militarism -- at least enough to militarily resist some other nation overrunning them -- but there IS a distinct scale running from them to HUGELY Militaristic cultures such as the Mongols, Huns, Germans (under Hitler), etc.  

Can you envision the Tibetan culture as it is (and has been for centuries) transforming into something akin to Germany under Hitler?  Or Cambodia under Pol Pot?  All in the space of ONE generation?  I can't.

Militant strains of Buddhism have a long history in Tibet and are still present. With the right factors they could absolutely become something like that, just like anyone else. The Dalai Lama might have managed to convince everyone that Buddhism and Tibet are something inherently good and pacifist, but that's certainly not the reality on the ground or in history (and I say that with no hate towards either him, Buddhism or Tibet, he's got good reasons for that PR campaign.)

I think this discussion is more illuminating in how it shows that labels like militarist, agrarian, etc. are based more on stereotypes and good PR than real history.

Alice99 wrote:

Militant strains of Buddhism have a long history in Tibet and are still present. 

I have never in my (long) life heard of Tibetan Buddhism as being militant.  I _have_ heard of some of some nations/empires that were predominantly Buddhist being militant, aggressive, and expansionistic.  But in those cases, it wasn't the Buddhism that was driving them to be Militaristic.  (Unlike, for example, the Muslim jihads that swept across North Africa into Spain, and was a foundation block of the Ottoman Empire.)

CaptainPatch wrote:

Alice99 wrote:

Militant strains of Buddhism have a long history in Tibet and are still present. 

I have never in my (long) life heard of Tibetan Buddhism as being militant.  I _have_ heard of some of some nations/empires that were predominantly Buddhist being militant, aggressive, and expansionistic.  But in those cases, it wasn't the Buddhism that was driving them to be Militaristic.  (Unlike, for example, the Muslim jihads that swept across North Africa into Spain, and was a foundation block of the Ottoman Empire.)

I don't know about Tibetan Buddhism but the buddhist warrior monks of Japan have had a long, complicated, and varied history of militarism. During at least one point of Japanese history, they posed a significant threat to the Shogunate, and could have conceivably created a militarist power that was Buddhist in nature.

Monger wrote:

I don't know about Tibetan Buddhism but the buddhist warrior monks of Japan have had a long, complicated, and varied history of militarism. During at least one point of Japanese history, they posed a significant threat to the Shogunate, and could have conceivably created a militarist power that was Buddhist in nature.

Those "warrior monks" operated along two central principles: Self-defense and protection of the Weak and oppressed.  They were a threat to the Shogunate because of it's harsh treatment of the Japanese peasants.  There were, in fact, a number of Christian warrior monks that participated in the Crusades and operated much like the Buddhist monks.  (The group that comes to mind was active in the defense of Constantinople when the Ottoman Empire brought the Byzantine Empire to an end.)

HOWEVER, I wouldn't identify any of those "warrior monks" as being Militaristic/Warmonger-ish.  The latter is associated with empire-expansion in pretty much every Humanity long-span game as being aggressors.  As such, those "warrior monks" belong much more towards the Pacifist end of the spectrum rather than anywhere near the Militaristic end.  After all, being a pacifist does NOT mean you are NOT allowed to defend yourself or others.

CaptainPatch wrote:
HOWEVER, I wouldn't identify any of those "warrior monks" as being Militaristic/Warmonger-ish.  The latter is associated with empire-expansion in pretty much every Humanity long-span game as being aggressors.

Poland is given the Militarist Affinity, and it's most well known wars are wars of defense. War is war, the only requirement is an emphasis on fighting, even on the defense. 

FlamingKetchup wrote:

Poland is given the Militarist Affinity, and it's most well known wars are wars of defense. War is war, the only requirement is an emphasis on fighting, even on the defense. 

You should watch the movie Tarus Bulba starring Yul Brenner and Tony Curtis.  It highlights the era when Poland was bent on empire-building.